Multiple Tests Confirming Iraq WMD Send Media Into Deep Spin

NewsMax ^ | 1/4/04 | Limbacher

[davetex]

What witnesses?

[Peach]

You sound just like Baghdad Bob when you spout off stuff like that.

As a DU'er, you probably aren't even embarrassed.

[txrangerette]

I wouldn't try that line on us
if I were you. Too many of us know
too much. 'Course I'm not you. Go
for it.

(He he.)

[livius]

Actually, I don't know why folks are upset about this pre-9/11 attack on Iraq story.

Everybody - including Clinton, who has admitted it on several occasions - knew that Iraq was dangerous and was evading the UN inspections, and everybody also knew that Iraq was supporting and training terrorists.

If Bush hadn't started looking prior to 9/11 at attacking Iraq, he would have been remiss. The only pity was that probably folks like Powell counseled him to hold off on it. Even after 9/11, there were still many who were doing that, just as the Dems had done for years.

So either way, this is a lose/lose situation for the Dems.

[Steve Eisenberg]

The fact is, most people who understand the Iraq war --- which is most people here at FR and a majority of American citizens --- aren't all that hung up on the issue of WMD.

Right. It is much more of a political problem for Blair than Bush. All the American people needed to know was that Saddam had a terrorist training camp complete with 707; knowing this, we knew that after 9/11, you don't play no fly zone games any more. I have no idea what more they will find because war is unpredictable.

[Leroy S. Mort]

I have about decided that we knew there were no WMD and knowingly made up this excuse because we were planning this overthrow long before 911 according to irrefutible witnesses.

If so, the "conspiracy" predates the Bush administration as evidenced by this speech given by Bill Clinton in 1998:

excerpt:
"And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

[hershey]

Every time the media pulls something underhanded like this, I'm furious, but not surprised. There's literally nothing they won't do to deny a Bush victory. Just heard Fox TV who should know better, say, well, we found the blister agent shells, but are we any closer to finding WMD? The guest is calling them tactical weapons, probably not fit to put on scuds, so splitting hairs here. Nuts.

[Mike Darancette]

Let's don't push this as WMD.

WMD is WMD RATS say there is none and there never was any. The UN didn't find it, Saddam didn't report it and it is bad stuff and will kill.

This is EXACTLY the reason we went into Iraq, we knew that they had WMD at one time and suspected that they had it now. As to quantity, quality and age of the WMD no one had a clear idea before the war or even now. We COULDN'T take the chance and continue reliance on the UN.

[Williams]

When it was discovered Sadaam's sons gave a nuclear scientist centrifuges and told him to bury them under a rose bush so Iraq could reconstitute a nuclear weapons program once the UN got off their backs - that was enough for me. The Bush Admin needs to use information more aggressively. The intent to hide rather than destroy this stuff was clear.

[Pubbie]

fayetteky #8 ZOT!!!

[Exit148]

Interesting how some comment will immediately make you zero on the sender's name for a membership date! And -- usually, your suspicions are on target! Will these guys ever learn?

[Lazamataz]

More than 12 hours after the Fox News Channel, Reuters and the Associated Press carried reports that preliminary tests showed Iraqi mortar shells discovered near Basra contain a deadly liquid blister agent, the New York Times had yet to report the bombshell find on the main page of its Web site – or anywhere in its Sunday morning print edition.

The Washington Post's Web site also chose not to cover the blockbuster news, which ABC News military analyst Tony Cordesman said Saturday would be "the first real confirmation that Iraq actually had deployed chemical weapons and was prepared to use them" if tests confirmed the find.

More proof (as if we needed it) that the New York Times and the Washington Post have completely, brazenly, and outrightly abandoned their roles as reporters of news.

[EggsAckley]

[SandRat]

Earlier posting today of this story

[Liberty Valance]

Do you honestly think Saddam wasn't trying to covertly deploy WMD's? History will prove we did the right thing in Iraq. I for one am proud we've got a leader who does the right thing regardless of his faithless detractors.

[Lazamataz]

The American Propaganda Machine (a.k.a. "The Mainstream Newsmedia") never rests. Thank God for the internet and other sources of information.

If this was the 1970's or 1980's, you never would have heard of this story.

Ever.

[Leroy S. Mort]

fayetteky #8 ZOT!!!

Kind of a shame, because I'd like to have seen his/her response to my post. Oh well....

[tongue-tied]

Exactly. We have plans drawn up for several scenarios regarding N. Korea, several Mideastern countries, S. East Asian countries, etc. just as we did against the old Soviet Union. Its called war planning, and we try to anticipate any and all possibilities so that we're ready to respond to an attack or prevent one from occurring.

This is the only smart way to be prepared for any contingency. Sorry to those that don't like it, but it does insure our nation's self-preservation.

[John H K]

These are, in fact, about 10 years old

The age is very unclear, and none of the stories I've seen have it as EXACTLY 10 years old.

I believe the general thrust was that they were at LEAST 10 years old.

Anyway, anyone who believes 120mm mortar shells buried in this small a quantity for that long in the condition they are in was part of a grand devious plan to evade inspectors and then use them later is seriously delusional.

[Steve Eisenberg]

Just heard Fox TV who should know better, say, well, we found the blister agent shells, but are we any closer to finding WMD? The guest is calling them tactical weapons, probably not fit to put on scuds, so splitting hairs here. Nuts.

They are still into the inspections mentality. Under the old inspections regime, Saddam WAS ALLOWED POISON GAS so long as it was inventoried, tagged, and "controlled" for eventual destruction. If anyone can remember back that far, two years ago there were no inspectors in Iraq to do this "controlling" because Saddam had thrown them out. The only reason they were allowed back was because Bush threatened invasion. If we would have backed down from the threats, while Saddam continued to shoot at our planes, the Saddamites would have seen us for spineless inconstant weaklings and brought back full production.