Posted on 11/15/2005 5:55:30 AM PST by conservativecorner
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
The New York Times
April 29, 2001, p. A8
here:
-They were talking about the dreaded SUV, the lefts' most dreaded WMD.-
LOL!!
I was listening to the Bachelor radio show last night and he had Steve Hays on. Hays did an article for some recent publication (I forgot the name - wasn't totally awake). Anyway, Hays said there are a bunch of documents confiscated by the US military that are in a heavily guarded warehouse in Iraq. In their discussion last night, they sent out a warning to Harry Reid to be careful where he treads because there is supposed to be evidence of WMD or intent to develop them. Also a purchase order for chemical suits and evidence of communication between Uday and the Taliban.
What type of "modified vehicle" do Iraq war critics think Saddam's general was worried about? A souped-up 1967 Mustang?
___________
Post photos, please...mine's in media blasting
"They were talking about the dreaded SUV, the lefts' most dreaded WMD."
It was Teddy Kennedys ScotchMobile.
Well they're invisible see....only visible to World Nut Daily and a select few true believers...
I think it's also important to note that even the most ardent talking heads like Hannity and Limbaugh have dropped the pretense, let alone the administration
The Bush administration has stated they didn't find WMD's.
I still believe they were moved out.
First you should understand that News Max is covering an article that appeared in the NY Times. They aren't making it up out of thin air. Since you won't believe a "right wing site", will you at least believe the NY Times?
N.Y. Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003 [Well What Do You Know Alert]
News Max ^ | March 13, 2005 | Carl Limbacher
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."
Story Continues Below
"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 Iraqi officials to start the process of accounting for the missing stockpiles still ostensibly under the agency's supervision.
Quoting Sami al-Araji, Iraq's deputy minister of industry since the 1980s, the Times 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."
Calling the operation "sophisticated," Dr. Araji said the removal effort featured "cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites," adding, "They knew what they were doing."
The top Iraqi defense official 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 WMD program.
Dr. Araji said that if the equipment had left the country, its most likely destination was a neighboring state.
The United Nations, worried that the nuclear material and equipment could be used in clandestine bomb production, has been hunting for it throughout the Middle East, largely unsuccessfully, the Times said.
Saddam's Nukes?
Does Carl Levin know something the rest of us don't?
by Stephen F. Hayes
11/08/2005 7:25:00 PM
Levin, the second ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is leading the charge against the White House for manipulating intelligence on Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and connections to al Qaeda. He has been dogged and ruthless, focusing his criticism on two areas of the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq: the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program. Levin claims that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence in both areas to frighten the American public into supporting a war of choice.
Which is why Levin's latest claim is so startling. On Monday, Levin appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC and made the following declaration:
"There was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that."
Really? I'd like to see it. (The transcript is here and the video can be viewed on the Hardball main page, here.
Levin also criticized the Bush administration for deciding to remove Saddam Hussein shortly after 9/11. It is a curious charge. On December 16, 2001, in an appearance on CNN, Levin himself called for regime change in Iraq. Levin would not say whether he supported making Hussein's Iraq the "next target" after Afghanistan, but he did say this:
"The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as he [Saddam Hussein] is in power."
Here then, is the relevant portion
of Monday night's exchange:
MATTHEWS: Senator Levin, from what I can figure, our audience on HARDBALL is a pretty mixed bag of conservatives, liberals and middle-of- the-roaders. That shifts of course. But, there are a lot of people out there who have different views than you, or me, or anybody else on this war.
I just wondered, analytically, how would you best describe the manner in which the vice president and his people and others in the administration looked at this intel? That you've just described. What was it, selective use? Was it a skewed use of it? Was it a worst-case scenario? Was it deliberate lying?
LEVIN: I think they ignored the intelligence that did not support their decision to go to war, basically. They were looking for those snippets of intelligence that would support their decision to go to war. That is basically what their signal was.
I believe the intelligence community. The intelligence community then provided some distorted intelligence on a lot of things. But, that's not what the issue is that I raise this weekend.
This is where the intelligence community was right and they ignored the intelligence community. Not where the intelligence community was wrong, which was plenty of times.
There are instance after instance after instance where the intelligence community was right or divided, where the administration, for reasons to, obvious to create an impression that they wanted the American people to believe, where they did not use what the intelligence community had found or decided.
MATTHEWS: What came first do you believe, Senator? Their desire to go to war or the way they looked at the evidence?
LEVIN: I think basically they decided immediately after 9/11 to go after Saddam. They began to--look there was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that.
Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.
I'm waiting for the DEBKA confirmation.
It was a hoax, trying to show that Mo' and his sheetheads invented the jet airplane...
"WMD proof"?I know that artillery shells were found with chemical warheads.That certainly qualifies as a "thimble" full.
"I'm waiting for the DEBKA confirmation."
Is DEBKA less reliable than, say, the New York Times?
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.