Skip to comments.'Bush Was Right'(Saddam's WMD)
Posted on 02/21/2006 5:38:24 PM PST by kellynla
WMD: The quote above is that of a former UNSCOM member after translating and reviewing 12 hours of taped conversations between Saddam Hussein and his aides. So what's on the covers of Time and Newsweek?
Funny thing about dictators and tyrants: Very often they are meticulous record keepers. The fall of the Third Reich, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein's Iraq all produced treasure troves of information. In Iraq's case, there were so many documents and records that even now only a small fraction have been translated and analyzed.
Among them are 12 hours of conversations from the early 1990s through 2000 between Hussein and his top advisers. They reveal, among other things, how Iraq was working on an advanced method of enriching uranium, how Iraq was conspiring to deceive U.N. inspectors regarding weapons of mass destruction and how these weapons might be used against the U.S.
The tapes were officially presented Sunday by former FBI translator Bill Tierney to a private conference of former weapons inspectors and intelligence experts in Arlington, Va. Tierney is an Arabic speaker who worked in the mid-1990s for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the agency responsible for overseeing Iraq's disarmament.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
THIS is what we should be talking about instead of Cheney and ports.
Everyone is in too much of a lather to even notice.
The Media is about to become silent on the issue of WMD.
MSM .... CHIRP CHIRP (sounds of crickets)
The MSM and DNC couldn't have made this happen any better if they planned it.
Okay look, I don't deny that there's a generic media bias against anything that would make Bush look good, but this is such a gigantic story that is so muffled, even among many conservative sites. (Even here, it gets only moderate play.)
There's got to be more to it than mere media bias. What is it?
Any members of Congress, who were aware of this proof of WMDs yet actively opposed the Iraq war, are guilty of treason. Indict.
Call me crazy, but I think the port issue deserves higher coverage. The port issue is about security threats to come. The WMD issue is already settled, whether to our satisfaction or not. Iraq won't be getting WMDs. If our ports are secured by Arabs, the ports might be used as entry for WMDs.
I still think that the port of Houston or one near it in Texas will be the next terrorist target.
THIS is what we should be talking about instead of Cheney and ports.""
The operation of our ports is a correct topic for FR, I think. As for Cheney:
Who is making t-shirts that say:
I WOULD RATHER GO HUNTING WITH DICK CHENEY THAN DRIVING WITH TED KENNEDY!!! ??
I WOULD LIKE ONE IF THERE IS SUCH A THING. CONTACT ME DIRECTLY, PLEASE.
Because if the news was actually reported Bush's poll numbers might go into the eighties.
This story was posted here many times well before the ports story became hot, and it got a lot of attention. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the MSM completely ignored it.
I wouldn't say every thread. This topic is being followed too, although I have to say that far too many Freepers joined the MSM "no WMD" chorus and continue to doubt that there were any. This, despite all the evidence before, during, and after we invaded Iraq.
Too late now. They could find a billion tons of WMD stockpiled somewhere in Iraq and it wouldn't matter. The port story is undoing all that has been done to fight this war in the minds of many on both sides of the political aisle. Whoever took Karl Rove...ha ha...very funny...PUT HIM BACK NOW!
Someone in the White House screwed this up....BIG TIME....
The next terrorist target is any upcoming U.S. election. And their strategy is to get democrats elected.
A "good news" ping.
Bush was right about the WMD's.
I've BEEN talking about it. Proof or no, with eyes closed and fingers stuck
in their ears, my mentally disturbed liberal friends are chanting "Bush lied".
It's nuts. Like we are two countries living on one soil. Not a good sign. Come,
let us REASON together.
I was just watching the O'Reilly show a bit, and they suggested that the Bush admin is doing its level best to keep Russia and a few other countries on board with the WOT--and that this evidence is going to be extremely damaging to them. I'm not saying I buy this argument entirely--and if it's true, I'm not sure I care if someone gets their nose out of joint--but it's a theory I haven't heard before, and it could be true. We do know that the Russians helped Saddam get some of the WMDs out of Iraq and into Syria, for one thing.
I don't know about that. If THIS story took the place of the Cheney story, would it really turn the tide of public opinion? Only of the dems and their MSM agreed. If Chuckie S and company just said "Nope, nothing here" and MoDo and company dismissed it, I don't see it changing any minds. I mean, what was the opinion of the war yesterday in the minds of the public? I don't see it being overwhelmingly pro.
Do you mean this was one of the few times Bill Clinton was telling the truth?
The media is never going to make a big deal about this. It's up to Bush to spread this news. I can't figure out why he has spen the last 2 1/2 years hiding any news that supported the war.
Call me crazy, but it looks like the biggest rope-a-dope ever is coming. Could it be just in time for the mid terms? I think the Arab harbor deal might be related in some crazy way. Just a hunch.
Too worried about Cheny/Gitmo/Katrina/Rove-Gate instead, I guess
It was, and unfortunately it is... and not just from the MSM
So he was, but they're probably in Syria right now. And the security of ports and borders are important, yet he persists in leaving the borders practically open to illegal crossing, and now strongly affirms a bad decision to let an Al Qaeda-friendly state run a good number of the ports.
This has to be nailed down completely before anyone who is currently on record as believing the "Bush lied" mantra will even consider it. It isn't yet - it's still deniable as the story mentions, as the fantasies of a sycophant stroking Saddam. Even tied up with bows it will be difficult for its skeptics to swallow - recall how long it took anyone faced with the slamdunk of the Maples/Rather forgeries to even admit that perhaps there were problems. There are still some - the principals among them - in denial. I think at this point there is only evidence and there will likely never be proof - not the sort that those with a vested interest in disbelief will be forced to admit to, at least.
"THIS is what we should be talking about instead of Cheney and ports..."
Just listen to the radio for a few moments and you can hear what the big story is. Listen to a few callers and you will hear that this port move is (in their minds) a step back in the war on terror.
Because the "just know". They trust their gut. And they don't trust Bush because...well, I don't know, they just get "bad vibes" or somesuch stupidass thing.
Politics is the emotional part of governance, seems to me, and that's not going to change because when you don't LIKE the other person--as opposed to disagreeing with their position--you don't trust that when presented with the truth they will abandon their "gut" and admit, yes, you've proven your point and now I change my position.
Look at the debate HERE, for Pete's sake (I'm no angel on this score, either). People don't exchange facts--they exchange "witty" insults. Because if you're proven wrong it's seen as a disgrace, a slight.
It's refreshing to me when I talk to someone about politics and one of us provides facts that make the other go "Hmm, I didn't know that. You're right." When you're tlaking one-on-one with someone you like as a whole person, you know their intentions are good and don't care about intellectual arguments, because they're only that, discussions in which you're both looking for the truth.
Here, on the net, in the media, "Gotcha!" is all, high-fiving and "Yes!" exlcamations. Dana Milbank appears on Olberman, and people watch and think "Well this is the way they do it on TV, so it's how it's done!" No wonder we can't discuss matters of fact when appearance and getting in your face when you "lose" is the norm in society now.
What has happened with Drudge?
Yup. Here in Boston the "libertarian" Jay Severin is pushing so much disinformation it's embarassing. I can hardly listen to him at all, and after that I had to change the channel, I was CRINGING at his ignorance.
rope a dope a comin'...
I'm with you. I also think the Cheney circus was designed to draw interest away from this port issue. Bring it on.
Al quaeda is already here. Bush will fight them overseas. Democrats will cut and run. The biggest threat to national security is if democrats get elected.
People should be grateful this isn't MY board. I'd post an Emergency Suspension Of All Threads For One Hour...except this one. LOL
I can't really put my finger on it, and I hate to use the word feel, but it feels weird. Bush waving the veto pen today gave me the feeling. Something's up. The stupid Rats are going to fall for it again whatever it is, that's certain.
This is a complete false premise. If the UAE company buys these ports....they will not be "secured" by Arabs. They will be secured by exactly the same people that are securing them now. Do you see "British" security officials at our ports now doing the majority of security? - Of course not.
Is it a mistake? Or does he want you to think it's a mistake? G_d only knows what they know. I'm thinking I should trust the Prez here. I'm not 100%, but I'm leaning that way.
Thanks for the heads up, good news indeed
You are completely wrong on the ports issue. You simply don't have a true understanding of the situation. As many currently don't.
You might check www.drudgereport.com. That's where I saw them for sale.
Who? I want their names! ;O)