Posted on 10/05/2004 1:13:27 AM PDT by mrplind
The Iraqi physicist who ran his country's uranium enrichment program says that Saddam Hussein continued to fund efforts to develop nuclear weapons right up until the U.S. invasion in March 2003. ...
In an interview with WABC Radio's John Gambling, the Iraqi centrifuge scientist said he was ordered to keep his nuclear bombmaking research concealed from U.N. weapons inspectors.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Yes his involvement with terrorists and his desire to manufacture more WMDs to give to them is beyond dispute. But that counts for nothing with Big Media. Expect this story to be buried like all the others that prove Bush's case including Joe Wilson's lies, Sandy Berger's theft, and all the correspondence that has been chronicled between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. BM is out to get Bush, and facts exonerating the case for the war will be disposed of as quick as possible. We are dealing with a media that is criminal in failing in its obligation to provide pertinent info to the public. Thank god for Fox News, talk radio, and the internet.
News conference time. Come on, Rove. Get him out there. Let him make the announcement and don't answer their questions. Just get it out there.
Thank you...
bump for later read
You want to know why there were only 3 bumps? Because for the life of me, I can't understand why the president doesn't exploit this.
For example, we know Saddam had WMD - he never showed any proof he got rid of them, yet the administration says he doesn't have them. What kind of logic is that?
Why the President is saying Al Qaeda was never in Iraq - or they don't have WMD - (even though they used them in IED's) I can't understand.
Take a look at this thread.
Regarding Sandy Berger's theft - all kinds of people criticized me for bashing Ashcroft for not doing anything about Clinton or his cronies crimes.
He reminds me of Reno - Nothing will happen to Berger, just like nothing will happen to Rather, or Pardongate, or any other of Clinton's crimes.
I guess for the same reason they don't bring up the OKC connection, TWA800, Ron Brown's murder, etc. New Tone.
I trust you know about Jack Cashill's latest video, 'Mega Fix'?
What's your opinion? Because it will embarass the country? I think the powers that be don't want anything embarassing to come out because it reflects on them.
I haven't seen anything on Cashill's book, but another guy named Spence (?) has just come out with a book covering all of the things the government has covered up, including all those things that you mention.
My opinion? I think it's a political strategy to move on from the considerable corruption of the Clinton Admin, for PR purposes.
Check WorldnetDaily.com, look for 'Mega Fix'.
yep,
Saddam had not dimantled his nuclear program.
Saddam had not destroyed his nuclear program.
Saddam had simply frozen his nuclear program at a stage where
On David Kay's second day on the job,
the books author, MAHDI OBEIDI,
turned over these parts and blueprints to Saddam's Uranium
enrichment centrifuge.
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/story.cemtrifuge.iraq.jpg
That and the testimony of Saddam's other nuclear scientists led David Kay to make the follwoing statement as part of his interim report.
[quote]"With regard to Iraq's nuclear program, the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should clear up any doubts about whether [b]Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons. They have told ISG that Saddam Husayn remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons.[/b] These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point. Some indicated a resumption after Iraq was free of sanctions."[/quote]
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
From the NYTime Op-Ed page
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/opinion/26obeidi.html?pagewanted=all&position=
September 26, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Saddam, the Bomb and Me
By MAHDI OBEIDI
While the final report from Charles A. Duelfer, the top American inspector of Iraq's covert weapons programs, won't be released for a few weeks, the portions that have already been made public touch on many of the experiences I had [b]while working as the head of Saddam Hussein's nuclear centrifuge program.[/b] Now that I am living in the United States, I hope to answer some of the most important questions that remain.
What was really going in Iraq before the American invasion last year? [b]Iraq's nuclear weapons program was on the threshold of success before the 1991 invasion of Kuwait - there is no doubt in my mind that we could have produced dozens of nuclear weapons within a few years - but was stopped in its tracks by United Nations weapons inspectors after the Persian Gulf war and was never restarted. [/b]During the 1990's, the inspectors discovered all of the laboratories, machines and materials we had used in the nuclear program, and all were destroyed or otherwise incapacitated.
[b]By 1998, when Saddam Hussein evicted the weapons inspectors from Iraq, all that was left was the dangerous knowledge of hundreds of scientists and the blueprints and prototype parts for the centrifuge, which I had buried under a tree in my garden.[/b]
Your talking nonsense about 'stockpiles'. The *nuclear* program had no "stockpiles", it was a research program.
"We know the weapons existed." Uh, saddam never had the nuclear bomb, he was trying to get it.
It is indeed news if a scientist says they were still working and being paid in the program and were hiding it from inspectors. Deulfer found rail gun experiments going on, which is useful for nuclear weapons and little else.
If the Iraqi scientist could verify specifically the state of the program, it would be good. Assuming it was dormant is likely a flawed conclusion. At the nuclear facility, there was evidence that they had a research programs and scientists, but they scattered in March 2003.
We've got the puzzle pieces but havent put it all together.
"An October surprise, in my opinion, would consist of verification of the translated documents being exposed by CNS, "
that would be progress, indeed.
PING FOR AN IMPORTANT QUESTION!!
I has puzzled me as well. I think I know the answer.
You have to understand that Bush has been accused of "lying" for saying things that the CIA will dispute and leak to the New York Times. See Bob Novak's "CIA v Bush" piece Linked from here:
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com
I think Bush is in a corner in terms of the Saddam/WMD/terror links due to CIA reports that have 'gone south' in terms of what they are 'believing'. I think some in the CIA are out to get Bush and are *refusing to make intelligence claims that might support Bush's position*!!
The way the CIA assessment of situation in Iraq, an overly negative assessment btw, was leaked to the New York Times, bears this out. Put on your conspiracy-hat for a moment: Joe Wilson, the '16 words' Niger scandal-monger and liar, met a New York Times columnist *at a Democratic Senatorial party* - they conspired on the story from there. Folks like this embedded in the CIA are using MSM links to 'debunk' even true points about Saddams WMD pursuit and terror links. There are other Joe Wilson's in the CIA; they just haven't come forward by name. And unlike Rather-gate, we dont have access to the source docs to refute the 'analysis'. It can get filtered through anonymous sources to the New York Times to become "the story".
Thus, the details and facts of Saddam's support for terrorism and his pursuit of WMDs is washed away in a river of NYT words that put anonymous intel officials talking
of 'no links' or down-playing any evidence or source material.
Rumsfeld let slip this intelligence 'ignorance' the other day by saying the intel could even tell if Zarqawi was helped by saddam. (Funny those CNS docs seem to have something to say on that, and its obvious he was a terrorist *working out of baghdad*!! but 'never mind', CIA will say they cant conclude there is a link.)
What is Bush to do? I think since January of this year, Bush has had 3 not-so-good interactions publicly: MTP Tim Russert, April press conference, Debate Thursday. The common thread was Iraq and justification for war came up. Bush is not making claims and being defensive because if he goes out on a limb, CIA underlings are going to cut it off.
Bush has chosen this approach: Rather than debate or defend the WMD claims in specifics, he will stick to generalities, not specifics and point out the benefits of victory in Iraq.
He is not tangling in details because he doesnt want to get into a 'gotcha' trap of making a claim the MSM will trumpet as false.
Here is the way out: He should simply report on what the 9/11 commission and CIA *do* acknowledge, and get something out in the open that is bolder and more forceful than the MSM interpretation. For example, instead of 'no collaborative links' point out that the 911 commission reported that Saddam offered Osama Bin Laden safe haven in 1998 and that there were contacts between Saddams intelligence service and AL Qaeda for most of the 1990s.
etc.
PING - IRAQ and WMDs - thanks for quotes about saddams nuke program
Hmmmm - That is the best explanation I've heard yet - however, one would have to surmise that in order for this "vast left wing conspiracy" to exist (and I'm not being sarcastic) there would have to be a number of very unpatriotic rectums (being politically correct) in order for this to happen. How would they benefit? Would they possibly put the country at risk with their deception?
Of course I'm not ruling this out, knowing how the Clinton Administration operated. Could that many agents be so corrupt? Perhaps it takes only a few higher-ups - and maybe that's why he is changing leadership there. Tenant after all was a Clinton holdover.
This is the best explanation - however for the reasons I've stated above - I'm still very skeptical....
Thanks for your reply.
Awesome blog by the way. You seem very aware of what's going on - 90% of the people I talk to have no idea, or don't care.
Is it ignorance or apathy? - Response: "I don't know, and I don't care...
Less a 'conspiracy' than like minded Clintonoid types ... It's a theory and surmise, but there is evidence - just look at what we ALREADY KNOW about how Joe Wilson/Val Pflame operated, how Mr Pillar works, how the CIA routinely bashed Chalabi and did so even *this year* when our *real enemies* in Iraq were killing our soldiers... it adds up to hidden agendas and malfeasance.
havent the leading Democrats engaged in this kind of behavior as well? Kennedy, Kerry, the whole crowd...
Yep, there are definitely those in the media that claim CIA sources out after Bush--but I reckon more often than not, it's the media after them. After all, what's the CIA gonna do? "Yeah, we wrote that, and let me give you our sources on that, too, just so you can introduce them to your pals and have a few brewskis!"
Any time a source won't id himself on the MSM, you can bet it's anti-Bush. I'd look forward to Brent Bozell checking that out.
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.
