Skip to comments.
'Bush Was Right'(Saddam's WMD)
Investor's Business Daily ^
| 2/21/2006
| staff
Posted on 02/21/2006 5:38:24 PM PST by kellynla
WMD: The quote above is that of a former UNSCOM member after translating and reviewing 12 hours of taped conversations between Saddam Hussein and his aides. So what's on the covers of Time and Newsweek?
Funny thing about dictators and tyrants: Very often they are meticulous record keepers. The fall of the Third Reich, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein's Iraq all produced treasure troves of information. In Iraq's case, there were so many documents and records that even now only a small fraction have been translated and analyzed.
Among them are 12 hours of conversations from the early 1990s through 2000 between Hussein and his top advisers. They reveal, among other things, how Iraq was working on an advanced method of enriching uranium, how Iraq was conspiring to deceive U.N. inspectors regarding weapons of mass destruction and how these weapons might be used against the U.S.
The tapes were officially presented Sunday by former FBI translator Bill Tierney to a private conference of former weapons inspectors and intelligence experts in Arlington, Va. Tierney is an Arabic speaker who worked in the mid-1990s for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the agency responsible for overseeing Iraq's disarmament.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
TOPICS: Anthrax Scare; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anthrax; billtierney; fbi; gnfi; intelligencesummit; iraq; saddam; saddamtapes; tierney; unscom; wmd; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-155 last
To: LibertarianInExile
The American company mentioned is not a public corporation and is not large enough to take the business on this deal.
141
posted on
02/22/2006 4:06:34 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
To: RightWhale
"The American company mentioned is not a public corporation and is not large enough to take the business on this deal."
Wha--the company is soooo small they can't even hire, train, a monkey to send to each port to collect profits? I thought that was all DPWorld was doing, according the folks supporting this action here, that there was no significant involvement by management or new hiring that was going to take place? What business would they be taking?
142
posted on
02/22/2006 4:10:32 PM PST
by
LibertarianInExile
(Freedom isn't free--no, there's a hefty f'in fee--and if you don't throw in your buck-o-5, who will?)
To: LibertarianInExile
Usually bids are accepted only from companies of sufficient size. That's how business is done. SSA Marine is in the business, but they are not large enough for this deal.
143
posted on
02/22/2006 4:12:45 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
To: RightWhale
"Usually bids are accepted only from companies of sufficient size. That's how business is done. SSA Marine is in the business, but they are not large enough for this deal."
But again, why would no company be the sufficient size to handle this? I thought this was just profit collection? A competent accountant could pull that off!
144
posted on
02/22/2006 4:16:24 PM PST
by
LibertarianInExile
(Freedom isn't free--no, there's a hefty f'in fee--and if you don't throw in your buck-o-5, who will?)
To: LibertarianInExile
My own company has a net worth of about $10 (that's not billions, just 10). I should have bid. Surely I could borrow the other $2 billion by next Monday so I could ante up.
145
posted on
02/22/2006 4:20:11 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
To: RightWhale
Hey, since it's all just profit-collecting anyway, why not hire six accountants on a commission basis and do it? You can always go to the bank and get a loan, since the profits are going to be rolling in, right?
146
posted on
02/22/2006 4:28:55 PM PST
by
LibertarianInExile
(Freedom isn't free--no, there's a hefty f'in fee--and if you don't throw in your buck-o-5, who will?)
To: kellynla
147
posted on
02/22/2006 4:29:22 PM PST
by
onyx
(IF ONLY 10% of Muslims are radical, that's still 120 MILLION who want to kill us.)
To: kellynla
Boy...media is all over this one....zzzzzzzzz
148
posted on
02/22/2006 4:30:08 PM PST
by
wardaddy
(I want to be king ........tribute, neat robes ...and best of all Prima Noctra.......I'm down wid it!)
To: LibertarianInExile
It's very easy to do just that under the umbrella of a large business deal. The main contractor has to deal out subcontracts in short order, everything from finding pickup trucks to donut wagons. Anybody that seems somewhat competent can get a piece of the action. Of course there must be follow-through because when things calm down and the bookkeepers get to work the paperwork has to match up with the work.
149
posted on
02/22/2006 4:34:21 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
To: cwb
...especially the USA who has been smeared incredibly over this ordeal.We have the luxury of waiting for history to prove us correct on WMD. We don't have that luxury to when it comes to Iran. We have to act now and we need all the help we can get, help which will be slower to come if all we seem to care about is winning the WMD debate.
To: LibertarianInExile
To: EarlyBird
Quote: "We have the luxury of waiting for history to prove us correct on WMD."
I don't agree with that at all. If we are correct on the WMD issue, than this means that these weapons are in someone else's hands; one of the very reaons why we went into Iraq was to prevent these WMDs from getting into these hands. It does no good for history to prove us right if we still have to face this threat sometime in the future.
Quote: "We don't have that luxury to when it comes to Iran. We have to act now and we need all the help we can get, help which will be slower to come if all we seem to care about is winning the WMD debate."
Excuse me...but it isn't the "debate" that I am worried about winning; this is still a war, with other enemies who now have access to these WMDs. And whether you like it or not, this WMD debate has diminished US credibility. Regaining this credibility is very important if we are going to expect other nations to follow us in the future WOT...including any actions we may take in Iran.
Hell, one of the reasons we are even having to deal with Iran is because the so-called allies you want us to rely on have been double-dealing with these very nations. Just like with Saddam, the Soviets and French have been providing them with the material to get this far.
To continue to ignore this duplicity is nothing but appeasement that allows them to think they can continue at will. Are we going to have the Russians and French in Iran prior to any war there...just like Iraq, so they can destroy or move the materials and make us look like liars...again?
It is past time that we start acknowledging how we got here to begin with...or we're going to continue ending up here, over and over again. In fact, this has all the same makings of another Iraq-Redux, were everyone "talks" about doing something about Iran, but leaving the dirty work to the US so when the dust settles, the US is again, left looking like the aggressor for prohibiting the poor Iranians from developing legitimate nuclear energy.
Call me paranoid, but there is a sincere desire by other nations to cripple the US, even at the expense of other rising threats. And since when can't we chew bubble-gum and walk at the same time...especially since Iran is very much a part of this "WMD debate." Sadly, I don't think we have the luxury of waiting for history to prove us right...especially when history is overwhelmingly written by liberals.
152
posted on
02/23/2006 10:25:36 AM PST
by
cwb
(Liberalism is the opiate of the *asses)
To: cwb
I'm not say don't do anything about the WMDs. We know exactly where they are and have known since they were moved there -- Syria. And we are doing something about it (booting them out of Lebanon, destabilizing their ruling class, shrinking their influence in the region).
This thread was about why the administration is not talking about the WMDs, not about why the administration isn't doing anything about them. We do a lot of things without proclaiming them to the world, and my argument is that this is one of the things it does no good to talk about right now.
To: TruthNtegrity
154
posted on
02/25/2006 3:30:50 PM PST
by
TruthNtegrity
(What happened to "Able Danger" and any testimony by Col Schaffer?)
To: kellynla
This fell into a black hole as far as the MSM is concerned.
155
posted on
02/25/2006 3:31:45 PM PST
by
hershey
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-155 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson