Skip to comments.NY Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003
Posted on 03/13/2005 7:26:41 AM PST by MisterRepublican
click here to read article
Thanks for the link. I'm amazed that the Slimes would even print this.
"Dr. Araji said his account was based largely on observations by government employees and officials who either worked at the sites or lived near them."
Where are these gov. employees and officials now?
See Post 34. I was looking for the NY Times article precisely because I know that Newsmax tends to skew things and wanted confirmation of what NYT wrote before I used it.
Reading the original story I agree with you.
NYSlimes has already been discredited many times over...who cares...too little too late....us in the Red States NO longer give a sh*t what this articles says, we already knew this truth!!! NYSlimes is a bias piece of crap!!! This rag is a great kitty poop liner for my kitty's poop box.
But that's not the real news here. I urge all to read the Times original report and see what it says.
The real news is that the Times is admitting Iraq had tons of bad stuff when we invaded that it wasn't supposed to have, including "nuclear related" materials that have now gone missing.
If it's a problem that, that stuff is missing now, it certainly had to be considered a problem when Saddam had it.
Nope. READ THE STORIES CAREFULLY.
The stories are saying that some dual-use materials and plants that could conceivably be used to make WMDs (NO actual WMDs themselves) that were tagged and regularly inspected by the UN, and fully declared and known, were looted and shipped out of Iraq AFTER the US invaded.
Nope. They're quoting an Iraqi official, not claiming it themselves. It's basically just Bush-bashing.
Been frosting my britches everytime I see it. Now, I'm gonna bring this article to 'em, and ask that they take it down. And I will be happy to entertain other ideas if they don't do it. (and I won't be holding my breath)
See post 39. Newsmax spun the story much, much, more pro-Bush than the actual NYT article was.
"Wasn't supposed to have?" Actually Iraq was permitted to have a lot of "nuclear related" materials, including the tons of yellowcake, etc.
Time to change strategy?
The Bush Lied strategy failed, so let's switch to Bush let stockpiles get away.
"The Bush Lied strategy failed, so let's switch to Bush let stockpiles get away."
Yep, that's about the size of that.
Has anyone noticed a sudden turn of the MSM towards Bush lately? How he MAY have been right and that his policies ARE working? How they may have actually been wrong?
What's up with this?
Ok....sigh...I'm awake, now. Sadly, thanks.
If you bothered to read the actual article you might notice it's embarassing to the Bush administration.
I'm looking for the word "scrappleface" here somewhere...
"The threat posed by these types of facilities was cited by the Bush administration as a reason for invading Iraq, but the installations were left largely unguarded by allied forces in the chaotic months after the invasion. "
"NY Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003"
'bout time. That partisan rag could have released this story BEFORE the last election cycle...but I guess that would have been no fun for Kerry and Dean and Letterman and Leno and SNL all those ill-informed protesters that filled the streets of LA and NY and SF and London and ... AAAAAAAARrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Me too. Since according to Dante, I'm gonna be on the 5th level because I'm wrathful. I'm ready to open up a can of wrathful on some yahoo's.
is this from the Onion???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.