Posted on 03/15/2005 8:02:35 AM PST by pissant
Once again, a major story gets top billing in a mainstream paper—and is printed upside down. "Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says." This was how the New York Times led its front page on Sunday. According to the supporting story, Dr. Sami al-Araji, the deputy minister of industry, says that after the fall of Baghdad 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."
As printed, the implication of the story was not dissimilar from the Al-Qaqaa disclosures, which featured so much in the closing days of the presidential election last fall. In that case, a huge stock of conventional high-explosives had been allowed to go missing and was presumably in the hands of those who were massacring Iraqi civilians and killing coalition troops. At least one comment from the Bush campaign surrogate appeared to blame this negligence on the troops themselves. Followed to one possible conclusion, the implication was clear: The invasion of Iraq had made the world a more dangerous place by randomly scattering all sorts of weaponry, including mass-destruction weaponry, to destinations unknown.
It was eye-rubbing to read of the scale of this potential new nightmare. There in cold print was the Al Hatteen "munitions production plant that international inspectors called a complete potential nuclear weapons laboratory." And what of the Al Adwan facility, which "produced equipment used for uranium enrichment, necessary to make some kinds of nuclear weapons"? The overall pattern of the plundered sites was summarized thus, by reporters James Glanz and William J. Broad:
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
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.msn.com ...
A great article by Hitchens.
The NY Times sits in NY and makes up the news.
Hee hee
systematic looting
isn't that an oxymoron?
if it's systematic, it ain't looting
Bush lied...no he screwed up ...no he might be a little right ... well he is lucky.....It was gonna happen anyway.. Bush is a Nazi though
They use big words that goes right over the head of an emotional liberal.
ROTFL!
Kinda like "tightly-coordinated mayhem."
BTTT
Hitchens writes:
"Thus, if the story is factually correct—which we have no reason at all to doubt"
Clearly a major flaw in his analysis. This is from the New York Times. That alone is an obvious reason to doubt!!
"Looting" indeed! LOL As Hitchens points out, what happened does not fit the ordinary definition of "looting." This was a planned military operation, coordinated at the highest level, designed to hide Saddam's ongoing weapons programs.
As is usual with most of life's events, what's unfolding now in Iraq isn't good for really either side in the debate.
Clearly there were WMD's. (of course this won't be reported by the media)
Clearly we didn't secure the WMD sites very well, or at least quickly enough. (this WILL be reported by the media)
So, even though both sides (leftists and rightists) have some explaining to do, once again we have the classic situation: Bush will end up looking bad, all because the media won't report both sides of the situation.
So it will be ONLY our side with explaining to do, while the clearly false claim of "Bush lied about WMD's! People died from his lies" will simply fade away into obscurity, with no real explaination for THAT ever required or offered.
Bump, ping, and mark.
'That Bush, why he's an evil genius! No, no--the man's a slap-happy moron.' (Fuming)
Wish the Dums could make up their minds. Mebbe they'd split the difference and just call him: "our Overlord".
When you get the lefts top dog (Hitch) and the right's top dog (Rush) both flaying the old grey whore, that can only be good for Bush & Co.
And as Rush is pointing out, now there was WMDs. The NYTimes wants it both ways again.
"But obviously, what we are reading about is a carefully planned military operation. The participants were not panicked or greedy civilians helping themselves—which is the customary definition of a "looter," especially in wartime. They were mechanized and mobile and under orders, and acting in a concerted fashion. Thus, if the story is factually correct—which we have no reason at all to doubt—then Saddam's I"raq was a fairly highly-evolved WMD state, with a contingency plan for further concealment and distribution of the weaponry in case of attack or discovery."
the nyt is either stupid or evil.
In order for him [GW] to have LIED, he would have had to be "THE ONLY PERSON" on the face of the earth TO KNOW that IRAQ did NOT have WMD.
Because EVERYONE else on the face of the EARTH believed he had THEM!! It is as simple as that.
Ridiculous and stupid to the point of OBSURDITY that only LEFTIST America haters, could not understand!!!
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.