Posted on 03/13/2005 7:26:41 AM PST by MisterRepublican
In a stunning about-face, the New York Times reported Sunday that when the U.S. attacked Iraq in March 2003, Saddam Hussein possessed "stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials," as well as sophisticated equipment to manufacture nuclear and biological weapons, which was removed to "a neighboring state" before the U.S. could secure the weapons sites.
The U.N.'s Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission [Unmovic], "has filed regular reports to the Security Council since last May," the paper said, "about the dismantlement of important weapons installations and "the export of dangerous materials to foreign states."
"Officials of the commission and the [International] Atomic Energy Agency have repeatedly called on the Iraqi government to report on what it knows of the fate of the thousands of pieces of monitored equipment and stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials."
Last fall, IAEA director Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei confirmed that "nuclear-related materials" had gone missing from monitored sites, calling on the interim Iraqi government to start the process of accounting for the missing stockpiles still ostensibly under the agency's supervision.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
"I find it amazing the Iraqis had the focus to gut those facilities in the midst of being attacked - but they did"
And, they may have had some help from the Rooskies..
look, I suspect something along those lines, too, but NewsMax has (once again) played fast and loose with the facts in its article: The NYT made no such admission, it made NO SUCH "dramatic about-face".
I hope that in the fullness of time the facts will force the Slimes to eat a hogshead of crow, but we ain't there yet, and this NewsMax article does nothing but fool some of us into thinking we ARE.
We'd look like ASSES if we went into debate armed only with NewsMax spin.
#121 - Ruskies.
NewsMax does get ahead of the facts at times, I agree.
Still, this is a major admission for the NYT when just a little over a year ago they had to fire one of their own (or was it two) reporters for lying in the other direction.
#118 and #119 - great info on why things in the media are the way things are in the media (FOXNEWS) - ping.
===================================
Australian-born media magnate Rupert Murdoch is building a home near the Forbidden City in Beijing.
The (FOX) News Corporation executive chairman was building the house on property he bought in the Chinese capital's political and diplomatic area, Britain's Daily Telegraph website said Tuesday.
Perhaps this is an attempt to get out on the right side of the WMD issue before Iraq's stockpile is discovered in another country. They might still have some time before that occurs so that they can prep the sheeple for the "new message" and movie the expectation goal posts on the GWB administration.
I see the Left's false arguement shifting from "Bush lied about WMD" to "Bush lost Iraq's WMD" as events unfold. The "new message" shifts the focus from Bush's and Republican's honesty to competency. It also plays right into Hillary!s shift towards homeland defense, military, and immigration issues. The slogan "It's the economy, stupid" in 1992 was all about competency and "Bush lost Iraq's WMD" is the post-911 equivalent.
At least that's how the NYT is trying to spin it. See my post #126
I don't know about the subplots with Hillary and how this helps her in '08....but the NY Times has done Bush a huge favor today whether they know it or not. They have just laid the groundwork for a future military operation to go get those missing WMD.
NYT is much too expensive for a kitty box liner.
Try the Washington Post, its only a quarter.
The key factor is "lied". I quoted the above from our president --- in 2/98. What these media/political pinheads have been too ignorant to realize is the fact that if Bush "lied", so did Clinton!
Pray for W and Our Troops
So the UN knew there was missing material from Iraq? Huh? I thought there never was any material.
I agree on the go-light to "collect" Iraq's missing WMDs wherever they may be.
yes, you are correct.
i read today's print nyt and thought the same thing as you, i.e., that they're shifting the argument now to incompetence.
indirectly it's a criticism of rumsfeld and his doctrine for "not putting enough troops on the ground", as kerry said.
what burns me most is how the television stations etch one or two stupid ideas into the couch and recliner set.
most of this country's easy to indoctrinate: they're intoxicated by tv, alcohol, food, drugs, shopping, sports, hollywood, etc.
You've hit it on the head, as the "This is not a story!" posters on this thread can't seem to get through their skulls. Maybe they're too busy posting their 27th "You've all got it wrong!" posts to actually think this through .
Look at the STORY--not just the slant (which those posters can't seem to get around), and not at NewsMax's slant, either.
This is the MSM trying to push another anti-Bush story from another angle. In doing so, they had to look in-depth at the Iraqi WMD MANUFACTURING potential.
Is this about finding WMD? Nope. But those here trying to say this is nothing at all are so intent on being the spectres at the table they're not seeing the larger story, which is that even the MSM are beginning their anti-Bush rants with "Of COURSE Saddam had the potential to build WMD," something they haven't been saying as they've been too busy telling us Iraq had no capability or plans to build WMD.
Well it's OK to say it now with the election over and Hillary trying to be a moderate.
There is a concerted effort behind all these "new revelations".
Hillary is trying to hitch her wagon to the middle eastern bandwagon. She's going to run in 08 and will point to 4 YEARS of support for the budding democracy in Iraq. She will paint her solutions as common with repubilican but better in order to convince enough of the middle that voted Kerry off in 04.
I guarantee you that word has gone out at the very highest levels to stop the anti-troop, anti-war, anti-Bush rhetoric. This will allow Hillary to be dead on message come 08. The tide has already changed and since dems are incapable of forcing a loss in Iraq, they're going to push a win and claimed it was their doing.
Hillary will have bedazzled enough people by 08 that she will become president unless a very strong candidate emerges. It will be a dark day and we will slide headlong into pure socialism. It's frigtening.
If I may amend for future, archival searches:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html?ex=1111294800&en=2908f890e8beb814&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY
Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says
By JAMES GLANZ and WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: March 13, 2005
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.