|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:07 am Post subject: Iraq's [Imaginary] Weapons of Mass Destruction |
    |
|
An interesting bit of truth is slowly leaking out into the mainstream media with little fanfare, and it's the news that Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction may have been looted or moved from the country during the war. Remember...prior to to JK's defeat last November, there were no weapons of mass destruction. Suddenly...we're finding out where they might have gone. How's that for media bias?
The first major news organization to suck it up is none other than the New York Times. That leftist paper reported yesterday that when the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam not only possessed stockpiles of WMD, but it was moved to a neighboring state before Coalition forces could get there. For how many months have people been saying this? Looks like a nice plate of crow is going to be served to the Bush-bashing left:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1664
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ahem. For the record, the article speaks of the looting of weapons-making EQUIPMENT, not of any weapons themselves.
I hate to spoil your fun. . .
SDR  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
And for those from the government schools of thought, the paper quoted Sami al-Araji, Iraq's deputy minister of industry as saying "It appeared that a highly organized operation had pinpointed specific plants in search of valuable equipment, some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications, and carted the machinery away." He also says it was a very sophisticated operation. So how much will we hear about this? Did the Russians help? Is this why Putin was so dead-set against the war?
The mainstream media reads, relies on and regurgitates much of what they read in the New York Times on a daily basis. Since this story will be perceived as being good for George Bush, expect it to be buried. But make no mistake: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, possessed the capability to produce nuclear weapons and would have sold or used them.
Thank God he was stopped. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1086
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html
"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."
"... "Targeted looting of this kind of equipment has to be seen as a proliferation threat," said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a private nonprofit organization in Washington that tracks the spread of unconventional weapons."
"... White House officials, apprised of the Iraqi account by The New York Times, said it was already well known that many weapons sites had been looted. They had no other comment."
"... Agency inspectors, in visiting other countries, have discovered tons of industrial scrap, some radioactively contaminated, from Iraq, the report noted. It added, however, that the agency had been unable to track down any of the high-quality, dual-use equipment or materials.
""The disappearance of such equipment," the report emphasized, "may be of proliferation significance.""
If you read this story carefully, and interpret it with the assumption that the Bush/Cheney administration has some modium of competency, such that they would secure what they really cared about, you might come out with an interesting perspective.
Weapons-making equipment and specialized high-explosives: not secured.
Oil: secured. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1664
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's the way I read it. . ."If it walks like a duck. . ."
Without troubling myself to go through the archives, I'm simply going to ask: What does Donald mean by "government schools"?
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
So how did Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction plants get plundered? Christopher Hitchens takes a look inside the facts. This reads like a duck too I guess:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2114820/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1664
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Last paragraph of Hitchens' article: "Supporters of the overdue disarmament and liberation [sic] of Iraq, all the same, can't be complacent about this story. It seems flabbergasting that any of these sites were unsecured after the invasion, yet alone for so long. Did the CIA yet again lack "human intelligence" as well as every other kind? The Bush administration staked the reputation of the United States on the matter. It won't do to say "mistakes were made."
SDR
__________________________
"I'm the commander, see. I don't have to explain. I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." George W Bush |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1115
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
former left-wing weenie, Hitchens, wrote a book insulting Mother Theresa of Calcutta.
a real GOP intellectual.
weak intelligence - yup, that sure is the problem.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1664
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is anybody, "saint" or no, above reproach?
Interesting interview the other day of a psychologist who has identified what he calls "acquired situational narcissicism," which he says explains the mind-set of the terminally famous, whether a sports hero, Hollywood star, or successful politician. They become progressively more self-oriented, accustomed to being recognized, adulated and deferred to, while their interest in and empathy for others wanes and atrophies, he says.
Off-topic interlude. Sorry.
SDR
_________________
"I'm the commander . . . see, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." GWB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | weak intelligence - yup, that sure is the problem. |
Yes, wasn't it that weak intelligence from the Brits that started all the talk about President Bush's claim that Iraq sought uranium in Africa?? ....remember....Bush didn't lie at all whatsoever.....he was simply stating what British intelligence had reported. His statement was true by any logical standard, followed up by a British report, with the claims about Iraq were "well-founded." In addition, there was the worthless Senate Intelligence Committee (an oxymoron if there ever was one) report saying Iraq sought uranium in Africa. So where's Joe Wilson now...and who was he anyway? Weak intelligence? - yup, there sure is enough blame to go around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1664
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oops -- sorry, I forgot: GWB is the "exception that proves the rule": he IS above reproach. Completely. Just ask him.
SDR
_________________
"I'm the commander . . . see, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." GWB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | "I'm the commander, see. I don't have to explain. I do not need to explain why I say things.... GWB |
A refresher quiz of last years election to serve as a reminder to SDR and others, why he is the "Commander":
You're trying to chose a Commander in Chief of America's armed forces who, for the next few years, will lead our armed forces as they fight World War IV, the war against Islamic Terrorism. Here are your two choices:
A: A man who's military service consists first of serving in the Air National Guard where he earned exemplary ratings from his superiors as a military leader and as a jet fighter pilot; and who then served for four years as the Commander in Chief of America's armed forces. During those four years as Commander in Chief he built the morale and strength of the U.S. armed forces; decimated the ranks of the Islamic terrorist organization that attacked America on 9/11, and liberated two countries -- freeing millions of people from tyranny in the process. A man, by the way, who has and will continue to have the respect and admiration of the men and women who serve our country in uniform.
B: A man who went to Vietnam as a Naval officer suffered three flesh wounds, two of them minor, wrote some of his own commendations for Purple Hearts, and upon the receipt of his third Purple Heart immediately asked to be sent back to the United States. Time in Vietnam? Four months. After discharge from the Navy this man became a radical opponent of the action in Vietnam, testifying before congress of various atrocities committed by American servicemen there which, admittedly, he did not witness. This man then voted against virtually every major Pentagon weapons program during his tenure in the U.S. Senate. He does not have and never will have the respect and admiration of the men and women who now serve our country in uniform.
We can all give thanks to God that GWB won this next four years leading us as Commander in Cheif hands down! And then there are those who want to see GWB and the USA fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1664
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Would it be conceivable to ask that America succeed, and GWB and cronies, fail? Then, with your permission, that's what I -- and MANY other loyal and true Americans, would -- and did -- vote for. So many, in fact that the popular vote -- in both 2000 and 2004 -- very nearly went the other way. As you know.
I note there is no rebuttal to the idea that, contrary to the "presidential" remark quoted, the commander-in-chief certainly is NOT above the requirement to be answerable to the people who placed him there -- his childish wish-dream of omnipotence to the contrary, not withstanding. . .
SDR
_________________
"I'm the commander . . . see, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." GWB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | commander-in-chief certainly is NOT above the requirement to be answerable to the people who placed him there |
A somewhat false statement SDR, as you are taking this comment a bit out of context. If there is an eminent threat against the USA that could jeopardize the nations security, the president doesn't have to answer to the people...and how many other times has this happened??? Maybe it was the tone or the way in which he responded that rubs you the wrong way...at any rate, if the commander-in-cheif were to be - a lovely person - in the white house with interns and we the people wanted to know whats up with that????.... then I do agree, that we deserve more than: "I did not have sex with that woman".
You see the difference? One is protecting the we the people nation against a threat, the other is protecting oneself against we the people....as if being "above us"....and those are in fact impeachable words.
It would be nice if the left were to get over the hurt of this past election and start to provide solutions for, not gripes against our Commander-in- Cheif. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1086
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
