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 ...
FOX news is talking about it and they do have the largest audience
Thanks for the ping; I'll read it tomorrow.
Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction.
As opposed to when?
I think this is got to be the reason.
It's now feared (according to Ken Timmerman's book Countdown to Crisis) that if Iran used all of the secret nuclear facilities that are now being discovered since it started building them in the early 90s (with lot's of help from A.Q. Khan, for one), they would have enough fissile material by now for 25 nuclear warheads.
The scary thing is that no one really knows. Timmerman's book is a must read, by the way.
Cooperation from Europe on the Iran issue is much more important right now then opening old wounds and wasting political capital on proving the WMD issue.
thanks for the ping. Saw it ;-)
The same people allready secure and inspect much of the cargo that comes into US ports from other ports that they operate.
They could have allready done us in, if that was their plan.
Thanks lady. I swear I have never doubted Saddam had WMDS or at least the making of them - even when our government says they were wrong - there were none. There was too much movement toward Syria prior to war. And it's like I said back then....Iraq is a big country. There could be God-knows-what buried on my back 40 and I wouldn't necessarily know about it.
Boy, does that ever hit it on the nose!
Definitely good news....thanks for the ping!
The possibility that someone in the White House has business ties to this deal is the real issue.
On the part of the MSM, it's bias. On the part of conservative sites like FR, they're preoccupied with Cheney, the ports, etc.
Able Danger hasn't gotten much play either.
As opposed to any time before the 1980s. It's never been this divisive. Are you saying it's ALWAYS been the way it is now?
Makes sense to me!
And we need to get the cooperation of the UAE...also...
BTTT what you said.
Maybe this is why the "port control issue" has exploded in recent days. Shhhhhh, Bush was right...
self-ping for tomorrow
That's because this is a "dog bites man" story.
I think Bush is INTENSELY focused on creating a western influence in the Middle East as the only way to bring lasting peace. He sees the Middle East as his Soviet Union, and so far he's done a far better job than he's been given credit for. And I believe this is part of that. There has to be give and take, nations need to be taken seriously and yet there are so many puzzle pieces that have to be kept track of over there that we don't quite see all the subtleties necessary to placate certain folks over there. Who is in the better position to crush Al Qaeda, ultimately, a US with NO allies in the region, or one that has good relations with a few nations there, which can serve as examples?
I'm not sold on this port thing, but the only folks here who have experience and knowledge about the workings of ports support this deal, or at least don't oppose it so strenuously. I don't think there is some master plan, I just think it's what it is. The MSM and DNC are already making it seem like the Administration is on the take, and are stoking impulses that are dangerous and will only weaken our hand in the Middle East. I can easily see this defeating the Republicans in 2006, and then in 2007 when the issue completely drops from the radar, people realizing they've been hoodwinked.
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.