New York Times Finds Iraqi WMD Sites

Now, there's a story in the New York Times that ran yesterday that, folks, I'll tell you, it is just amazing to continue to watch the mainstream press beat the drums in this country to try to rally anti-war support among the American people. And that's what this case has done. It's what this story has done. There's a fascinating interview in the China Daily, a Chi-Com newspaper with the managing editor of the Washington Post as well. And this managing editor of the Washington Post makes it plain that he does not think the US should be the leader of the world, and that his paper is oriented in that direction, as we've all known. I'll get to that story here in just a second.

[Headline] "Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says," New York Times yesterday. "In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government's first extensive comments on the looting." Now, anybody have a red flag going up here yet with just this paragraph? Okay. I'm sure you do. Did The Times notice its own red flag in its own opening paragraph? No, it does not. "The Iraqi official, Sami al-Araji, the deputy minister of industry, said 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." This is in weeks after Baghdad fell in April of 2003. The deputy minister of industry's name is Sami al-Araji, and he said his account was based largely on observations by government employees and officials who either worked at the sites or lived near them. He said, "'They came in with cranes and the lorries and they depleted the whole site. They knew what they were doing, they knew what they wanted, and this was sophisticated looting.' 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."

All right, now, let's just recount this blatantly and as succinctly as we can. The New York Times' purpose in reporting this story is to try to embarrass the administration. It wants to lay the blame for the movement of these materials and equipment on Bush and our military. But I think The Times has made a grave miscalculation here, folks. The entire argument by the Democrats, the left in the media for years now has been that George Bush lied about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, that the purpose of the war was faulty, the CIA was wrong and so forth, and we ought not even approve what Bush is doing now. We shouldn't even approve of the fact that there's democracy breaking out because Bush lied about why we went to Iraq. We had an entire 9/11 Commission and a report that was based on the assumption that Bush lied. We had weapons inspectors return from Iraq after searching for weapons telling us there were none and if we're to believe the New York Times, much of what they have said and most of the criticism against this president have now, by virtue of their own story, been completely wrong.

Now, I have been saying for years on this program that I suspected these materials and weapons had been moved. I couldn't prove it but it never made sense to me that all the world's best intelligence agencies and experts could be so completely wrong about Hussein and his efforts. So now what will John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Carl Levin say? What will Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton say now? Are they going to apologize to the pot for attempting to sabotage the war effort for the last several years on the basis he lied about the existence of these weapons? Will they go to the Senate floor and announce that the president was right and they were wrong? Ha-ha. Will they take responsibility for their slanders against the president? The answer is no, no, and hell no. They'll admit nothing. Even though they are always wrong, and yet they are considered the most intelligent, progressive, and wise among us. It is an absolute joke. And what of Michael Moore and all his propaganda? Will he be asked to return all those phony awards he received for his phony movie? No way. He's going to continue to make movies, he'll be applauded by the Hollywood left, the Democratic Party for his public service. I just want to see how long the mainstream media will give attention to this huge story if at all.

Let's see if they give credit where credit's due and give discredit where discredit is due. Because the New York Times has shown at least for yesterday that it's willing to report about this, although I feel certain that they want the world to focus on the timing of the removal of the material and equipment rather than it's existence, and this story does the best it can to hide the fact the stuff was there, but they can't hide it very well if their main focus is the fact that it was looted. So basically what we have here is a New York Times undermining its own position all these years, undermining the position of the left, and the Democratic Party, there were weapons that had ingredients for nuclear capability. They were looted. Of course they were looted! That's the whole point. Where are they now? That's what everybody should be asking, not saying that Bush had lied about this. And there's even more to back up the notion that those weapons were there.

Here's more from this bombshell New York Times story yesterday, bombshell to me. I guess it's not gotten much play out there, has it? You know, it's fascinating here to watch. The New York Times' big story yesterday, it's all about how these serious weapons in Iraq were looted after we invaded Baghdad. And of course this is nothing more than a rehash of the story they tried to run, they did run, they tried to gin people up against Bush one week before the election, remember that? Same thing, weapons looted, weapons missing, the whole thing. It's just amazing. I don't know how else to describe it. Still trying to drum up anti-war sentiment, Bush is incompetent, Bush is a boob. It's just amazing. They can't get off of it. It illustrates they're stubborn and they're hell-bent on convincing people of this, to hell with everything else that might be going on in the world, factual or otherwise. But in the process, they end up admitting that the weapons were there all along, and that horrible weapons were there. So Bush could not have lied about it. And yet the whole basis, if there's a foundation for the Democratic Party's current anti-war position, it is that Bush lied. And, of course, that's the foundation of Michael Moore's stupid piece of propaganda. It's that Bush lied. Bush didn't lie, and the New York Times, as much as said so yesterday.

Now, there has to be a reason why the rest of the mainstream press which normally regurgitates whatever the New York Times publishes, and it still could happen on World News Tonight and the other Nightly newscasts because the New York Times is in fact the managing editor of network newscasts these days, let's make no mistakes about that. So it could well be. We'll have to wait till tonight till after the Nightly News shows to see if they do pick up on this, but it hasn't been picked up yesterday as far as I can see, and I think I know why. Two reasons. A, it's old and rehashed and nothing new, and the big reason is -- (laughing) -- can't start trumpeting this thing or they'll have to come out and admit they were wrong about Bush lying. And they'll not admit they're wrong no matter what. Look at CBS and the forged documents. They will not admit that they are wrong, and I'm talking here particularly about Dan Rather and the staff that's either been asked to resign or fired.

But listen to some of the stuff that they say was looted here. "Dr. Araji said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's dormant program on unconventional weapons. After the invasion, occupation forces found no unconventional arms, and C.I.A. inspectors concluded that the effort had been largely abandoned after the Persian Gulf war in 1991. Dr. Araji said he had no evidence regarding where the equipment had gone. But his account raises the possibility that the specialized machinery from the arms establishment that the war was aimed at neutralizing had made its way to the black market or was in the hands of foreign governments." Yeah, and some of this stuff, you wait, it's going to be found in Syria in time. You just wait. And I pointed out at the time: some of this stuff was miniaturized. You could miniaturize some of this stuff and have it fit in these pocket calculators that computer nerds wear in their shirts. They can make it that small to get it -- not just computer nerds, a lot of people, fine Americans wear pocket guards, particularly in the red states, don't misunderstand me. But this stuff could be miniaturized to that point.

"As examples of the most important sites that were looted, Dr. Araji cited the Nida Factory, the Badr General Establishment, Al Ameer, Al Radwan, Al Hatteen, Al Qadisiya and Al Qaqaa. Al Radwan, for example, was a manufacturing plant for the uranium enrichment program, with enormous machine tools for making highly specialized parts, according to the Wisconsin Project. The Nida Factory was implicated in both the nuclear program and the manufacture of Scud missiles. Al Qaqaa, with some 1,100 structures, manufactured powerful explosives that could be used for conventional missile warheads and for setting off a nuclear detonation. Last fall, Iraqi government officials warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that some 377 tons of those explosives were missing after the invasion. But Al Qaqaa also contained a wide variety of weapons manufacturing machinery, including 800 pieces of chemical equipment. The kinds of machinery at the various sites included equipment that could be used to make missile parts, chemical weapons or centrifuges essential for enriching uranium for atom bombs. All of that 'dual use' equipment also has peaceful applications - for example, a tool to make parts for a nuclear implosion device or for a powerful commercial jet turbine."

Yeah. Right. That's what was going on. Now, here's the second story. Have it right here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. This is from the UK Telegraph, "Saddam Hussein's regime offered a $2 million (£1.4 million) bribe to the United Nations' chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for weapons of mass destruction. Rolf Ekeus, the Swede who led the UN's efforts to track down the weapons from 1991 to 1997, said that the offer came from Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign minister and deputy... The news that Iraq attempted to bribe a top UN official is a key piece of evidence for investigators into the scandal surrounding the oil-for-food programme."

Well, hold it. All right, that's all well and good, and, by the way, what did it cost Hussein to bribe Scott Ritter? A couple of Big Macs and a woman 13 years old outside the drive-through window? Here's the bottom line, folks, this is the bottom line. Let's go back to the first paragraph. "Saddam Hussein regime offered a $2 million bribe to the UN chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for WMDs." Why? If there weren't any, why? Why start bribing people about this? Two million just to the chief inspector? What was it he doing to some of the underlings? Why bribe anybody if there were no weapons of mass destruction? If George W. Bush were lying about all of this, why does this story even get past the editors anywhere? There couldn't have been a reason to bribe anybody. There weren't any weapons of mass destruction, Bush lied about it. A-ha, my friends, the chickens are coming home to roost!

As far as I can tell Rush blew this big time. These sites were known to the UN and were monitored sites before the war. The materials in them was known about before the war began. The NYT didn't suddenly "discover" WMD. In fact this isn't even news in the sense that it's current since this suff was being reported last fall. The NYT trots this old news out now in an attempt to embarras the administration but Rush is WAY wrong to say what he did today. (flame proof suit dutifully donned!)

> These sites were known to the UN and were monitored
> sites before the war.

That was my thought when I heard the exact NYT quote.

> ... Rush is WAY wrong to say what he did today.

Gotta wonder if he did it deliberately, just to get the
NYT to "clarify".

On the other hand, he did speculate that the NYT might
be trying to get ahead of emerging news, so possibly
Rush missed the part about them being previously known
and sealed sites, so who knows.

So let me see if I can sort out the new (and improved!) Liberal position on Iraq & the WMDs:

Bush lied about the WMDs that Saddam didn't have which were systematically looted and shipped to Syria because we didn't commit our illegal war for oil (which really wasn't about WMDs) fast enough.

So instead of "I voted for the 87 million before I voted against it," now they have "Bush lied about the WMDs before they went missing."

Man, that is one helluva nuance...

Whoever organized publication of this article was a moron.

Rush's take on it is the same as mine was. The Times was feebly attempting to blame Bush again for losing control of weapons in Iraq, and instead they admitted that there were weapons of mass destruction that were probably removed to Syria.

They can't even keep their lies straight.

As far as I can tell Rush blew this big time. These sites were known to the UN and were monitored sites before the war.

Read the story, "Saddam Hussein's regime offered a $2 million (£1.4 million) bribe to the United Nations' chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for weapons of mass destruction..." Why was the U.N. taking bribes if they were "monitoring the sites"?

The materials in them was known about before the war began. The NYT didn't suddenly "discover" WMD. In fact this isn't even news in the sense that it's current since this suff was being reported last fall. The NYT trots this old news out now in an attempt to embarras the administration but Rush is WAY wrong to say what he did today. (flame proof suit dutifully donned!)

What do you think the primary thrust of the liberal/media focus against Bush’s war in Iraq has been all along? You are out of line, it is the NY TIMES whose story creates an inadvertent mistake by admitting the weapons were there.

It did seem like a curious story for the Times to trot out at just this moment. I'm not sure exactly why they did so but here's some guesses -

1. The two tons of enriched uranium that was flown from Baghdad to Oak Ridge was not, technically, a "weapon." Yet. It could, however, have made hundreds of "dirty" bombs with no further refinement at all had its material turned up in terrorist hands.

2. The argument that Saddam had "no" WMD does not fit very well with the assertion that the IAEA "knew" about this material, which it certainly did - when the Marines found the storage areas they still had IAEA seals on them. Clearly, if we, meaning the UN and the world and not just the CIA, knew he had this material, then we knew he had the makings of a WMD.

3. Criticism of the current administration on the basis of lying about Saddam's WMD is therefore invalidated. Criticism based on his not having current development programs of which he was accused depends on whether the equipment in the article was actively being used or not. We certainly knew it existed just as we knew about the uranium, and for the same reason - it was documented by inspectors.

4. Therefore the only remaining criticism of the current administration, that the development programs were halted in 1991, depends on this equipment that was "looted" being unused at the time it became missing. Should it, or major pieces of it, turn up again they will likely yield a definitive answer. My guess is that the Times is hedging its bets against such a circumstance.

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.