Posted on 03/15/2005 8:02:35 AM PST by pissant
Once again, a major story gets top billing in a mainstream paper—and is printed upside down. "Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says." This was how the New York Times led its front page on Sunday. According to the supporting story, Dr. Sami al-Araji, the deputy minister of industry, says that after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, "looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms."
As printed, the implication of the story was not dissimilar from the Al-Qaqaa disclosures, which featured so much in the closing days of the presidential election last fall. In that case, a huge stock of conventional high-explosives had been allowed to go missing and was presumably in the hands of those who were massacring Iraqi civilians and killing coalition troops. At least one comment from the Bush campaign surrogate appeared to blame this negligence on the troops themselves. Followed to one possible conclusion, the implication was clear: The invasion of Iraq had made the world a more dangerous place by randomly scattering all sorts of weaponry, including mass-destruction weaponry, to destinations unknown.
It was eye-rubbing to read of the scale of this potential new nightmare. There in cold print was the Al Hatteen "munitions production plant that international inspectors called a complete potential nuclear weapons laboratory." And what of the Al Adwan facility, which "produced equipment used for uranium enrichment, necessary to make some kinds of nuclear weapons"? The overall pattern of the plundered sites was summarized thus, by reporters James Glanz and William J. Broad:
The kinds of machinery at the various sites included equipment that could be used to make missile parts, chemical weapons or centrifuges essential for enriching uranium for
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.msn.com ...
A great article by Hitchens.
The NY Times sits in NY and makes up the news.
Hee hee
systematic looting
isn't that an oxymoron?
if it's systematic, it ain't looting
Bush lied...no he screwed up ...no he might be a little right ... well he is lucky.....It was gonna happen anyway.. Bush is a Nazi though
They use big words that goes right over the head of an emotional liberal.
ROTFL!
Kinda like "tightly-coordinated mayhem."
BTTT
Hitchens writes:
"Thus, if the story is factually correct—which we have no reason at all to doubt"
Clearly a major flaw in his analysis. This is from the New York Times. That alone is an obvious reason to doubt!!
"Looting" indeed! LOL As Hitchens points out, what happened does not fit the ordinary definition of "looting." This was a planned military operation, coordinated at the highest level, designed to hide Saddam's ongoing weapons programs.
As is usual with most of life's events, what's unfolding now in Iraq isn't good for really either side in the debate.
Clearly there were WMD's. (of course this won't be reported by the media)
Clearly we didn't secure the WMD sites very well, or at least quickly enough. (this WILL be reported by the media)
So, even though both sides (leftists and rightists) have some explaining to do, once again we have the classic situation: Bush will end up looking bad, all because the media won't report both sides of the situation.
So it will be ONLY our side with explaining to do, while the clearly false claim of "Bush lied about WMD's! People died from his lies" will simply fade away into obscurity, with no real explaination for THAT ever required or offered.
Bump, ping, and mark.
'That Bush, why he's an evil genius! No, no--the man's a slap-happy moron.' (Fuming)
Wish the Dums could make up their minds. Mebbe they'd split the difference and just call him: "our Overlord".
When you get the lefts top dog (Hitch) and the right's top dog (Rush) both flaying the old grey whore, that can only be good for Bush & Co.
And as Rush is pointing out, now there was WMDs. The NYTimes wants it both ways again.
"But obviously, what we are reading about is a carefully planned military operation. The participants were not panicked or greedy civilians helping themselves—which is the customary definition of a "looter," especially in wartime. They were mechanized and mobile and under orders, and acting in a concerted fashion. Thus, if the story is factually correct—which we have no reason at all to doubt—then Saddam's I"raq was a fairly highly-evolved WMD state, with a contingency plan for further concealment and distribution of the weaponry in case of attack or discovery."
the nyt is either stupid or evil.
In order for him [GW] to have LIED, he would have had to be "THE ONLY PERSON" on the face of the earth TO KNOW that IRAQ did NOT have WMD.
Because EVERYONE else on the face of the EARTH believed he had THEM!! It is as simple as that.
Ridiculous and stupid to the point of OBSURDITY that only LEFTIST America haters, could not understand!!!
I have never been intellectually capable of believing the theory that every governmental agency across the Globe (some in collusion with saddam's government) could have all reached the identical conclusion that they had stockpiles of WMD, and been completely wrong. If this had been 1869 I might believe that a possibility. In 2003, no. Perhaps we lacked the well connected intelligence services on the ground we would have preferred, but in this age I do not believe we could be that wrong. How do we explain the satellite photos? Faked? No.
WMD's did or still do exist. Speculation in Bekaa Valley. I am more inclined than I am disinclined to believe this. And thanks to the Liberals acting like two year olds with their mantra "Bush Lied, nananana", we should have been jointly investigating the mystery of what happened to them.
You are right, and the New York Times is anyone's best source for oxymorons.
"the nyt is either stupid or evil."
Both!
Clearly, the NYT and the LAT are anti-American and anti-military.
The NYT has less credibility than a screen door on a submarine.
And along with the LAT and the Wash Post it's no wonder their circulations are sinking like the Titanic!
I guess the MSM would have felt better about the WMD if a few tens of thousands of Marines & Soldiers had been killed by their use.
Semper Fi,
Kelly
Good article.
Bump.
Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published October 28, 2004
Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.
Do you happen to have the link? I'd like to research this myself. TIA.
I absolutely LOVE Hitchens...he's been a slow and thoughtful convert- the opening of his eyes to reality has been fascinating to watch.
As to the newspaper of record...it's a broken record.
<< it's not a whore, it's a slut.
Like most New Yorkers, all of France and what's left of once-great-britain it has an awfully long way to go -- and a snow-ball's chance in Hell of making it -- up the social scale to "Whore."
ping for later read
I left the hard copy at home in my stack of stuff. But I believe I Googled it when I found it in the first place. It's the same report that showed the Iraq SA-2's in the junk yard in Rotterdam.
Exactly! It is in so many other people's interests (UN/Anti-American crowd) to say these weapons were removed after we took Baghdad...when in fact, the amount of time that Bush was demanded to negotiate provided adequate time to remove these weapons.
I'm sorry...but I just can't picture convoys with "tons" of material trekking through Iraq, unmolested, during the war. After all, we are talking about heavy equipment that would've easily been spotted by our survey groups. With a nearly 8-month gap between our warnings to Saddam and the start of this war...there are a lot of materials that could've left Iraq.
I believe that the NYTs may now believe that Saddam did have WMDs; and that they (along with others) are now going to do their best to blame Bush for what they'll call the proliferation of these weapons as they defelct attention from their gross incompetence...which included giving Saddam this additional time.
While I am sure that some material was still being looted during the war...it is beyond belief to think that Saddam wasn't removing material with the several-month warning we gave him. In fact, I'm sure this additional time granted Saddam was a prerequisite from those nations that did business with Saddam...as it gave them time to remove the very evidence that would've tied them to Saddam. Anyone remember the Russians and French who were still in Iraq as the war was just starting? I don't think they were there for Sun and sand.
2 Russian generals given awards in Iraq on war eve
The mission and the reason the generals received the awards were not disclosed in the April 2, 2003, report. However, Gen. Achalov told the newspaper that he "didn't fly to Baghdad to drink coffee."
The comment bolsters the claims of Pentagon officials who say Russian military advisers and special forces units were helping Iraq's military and intelligence services before the Iraq war.
The Pentagon has identified Russia as Iraq's top arms supplier, along with France and China. U.S. military officials have said Russian military suppliers sold Iraq special electronic jammers that were designed to thwart attacks by U.S. satellite-guided joint direct attack munitions, or JDAMs.
The jammers were bombed by the JDAMs, after the global positioning systems satellites signals used to guide them were boosted.
John A. Shaw, deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said this week that two European intelligence services have obtained documentary evidence indicating Russian spetsnaz, or special forces, troops were involved in a covert program to shred documents on Russian arms sales to Iraq, and to move weapons out of the country to Syria, Lebanon and possibly Iran.
The Russians were hired by the Iraqis to protect special Russian weapons and to organize the removal of arms through truck convoys. The Russian special forces troops were working for the GRU military intelligence service and wore civilian clothes, defense officials said.
Rush hit on this yesterday. Hitch was taking notes.
Clearly there were WMD's. (of course this won't be reported by the media)
Clearly we didn't secure the WMD sites very well, or at least quickly enough. (this WILL be reported by the media)
So, even though both sides (leftists and rightists) have some explaining to do, once again we have the classic situation: Bush will end up looking bad, all because the media won't report both sides of the situation.
As Hitchens points out, in the long run, the media cannot simultaneously push the “there were no WMDs” and the “Bush let them disperse the WMDs” stories.
Well, I guess they can, but only the idiot voters of the left will be able to swallow the contradiction, and they're effectively marginalized for the duration.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
Let me tell you what I love about the WMD debate. The attitude that our intelligence community are a backward gaggle of hicks that couldn't find a WMD if it hit them in the face.
I believe the WMD were already found, removed and destroyed as part of the bigger picture.
What happens if we find the WMD? What then? How do we know how much of it is still floating around? Will that cause a panic as we know that the NYT and the MSM will be screaming about Bush's negligence?
On the flip side, was this worth the abuse Bush took from the radical left? Was this a Rovian plot as to make the left rabid, let America see that, reelect Bush, all the while we have identified the WMD and with the help of Syria, destroyed it?
Call it a tinfoil hat theory of mine, however look at the logic. Finding the WMD will cause more of a headache to the world then just accepting it didn't exist. After we do find it, you know it will be publicized. What happens after that when Al Queada says they have 50 pounds of Ricin stashed in America and they are going to use it.
From a political point, the hit the administration took far outweighs making the left look bad while altering us to a potential danger.
Just my 2 centavos
Thanks for posting this! However,I made the mistake of reading some of the comments below the article (at Slate).... gotta go take a shower.
A while back, another freeper (I believe it was RandallFlagg) theorized that we had indeed found and removed the WMD's from Iraq. However, by not making that fact public, we were inviting terrorists from around the world to join in the phantom hunt for WMD's. (Why not concentrate the War on Terror in one area where we happen to have 130,000+ troops.) President Bush is magnanimous enough to take the continual "No WMD's" heat from the left while the fight is playing out. Of course, Randall put it more eloquently, but then, I'm just a lowly cook. ;-)
The point is as it was - you can't simultaneously claim "there were no WMDs" and then when presented with the two tons of enriched uranium that the IAEA had sealed up in Baghdad, claim "oh, but we knew about that." Yet that is precisely what the Times has been claiming all this time. And the ones swallowing both stories are the same who are notably proud of their "critical thinking" skills. You can't make this stuff up.
>the nyt is either stupid or evil<
Not both?
(Napoleon and Hitler each invaded Russia)
Actually, evil is an over-used term, IMO. Stupid and manipulative aren't.
-George
Good job, you got in one of the requisite three (a variation of "it's Bush's fault"). The other two are "I find the timing deeply suspicious" and "TDwDS, now DHRiDS" (Tom Daschle was deeply saddened, now Dingy Harry Reid is deeply saddened)
Why do people think a president micromanages every aspect of a war -- do folks think he has a big Stratego board in his office and moves pieces around on it, like in the movies?
He touches briefly on a fairly fundamental point...
Before the war, one of the most common arguments against it was that Saddam would unleash his WMDs on us. I even remember seeing a flash "game" on this point.
Now those *same exact people* argue that everyone knew Saddam had no WMDs...strange isn't it?
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.