Uncategorized 16 Mar 2005 10:52 am
NEW YORK TIMES: Looting at [Iraq] Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says
Looting at [Iraq] Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says (NYTimes.Com)
As far as I can tell, Rush Limbaugh is really the only commentator making a great deal of noise about this. I thought I’d chime in. The New York Times published an article over the weekend (of course) regarding revelations of clandestine plants intended to develop nuclear weapons for Saddam’s regime:
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.
Okay, time out. Let’s review some other NYT reporting on the issue of WMD in Iraq:
- Remember ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’? For Bush, They Are a Nonissue (12/18/03):
- U.S. Report Finds Iraq Was Minimal Weapons Threat in ‘03 (10/06/04):
- The Verdict Is In (10/07/04):
- Search for Illicit Weapons in Iraq Ends (01/12/2005):
Sen Bob Graham points out that Congressional vote authorizing use of force would have been closer but for Bush’s explicit warning of imminent threat; Bush continues shifting rationale, saying that removing Hussein was justifed even without weapon.
[N.B. The fact that Mr. Bush at no time ever uttered the words "imminent threat" is irrelevant as far as the interchangeable NYT/Democrat Party is concerned].
Iraq had essentially destroyed its illicit weapons capability within months after the Persian Gulf War ended in 1991, and its capacity to produce such weapons had eroded even further by the time of the American invasion in 2003, the top American inspector in Iraq [Charles Duelfer] said in a report made public today.
[N.B. for a distinctly different interpretation of the Duelfer report, see this editorial in the Washington Times].
Sanctions worked. Weapons inspectors worked. That is the bottom line of the long-awaited report on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. [The] findings leave Bush administration’s rationale for war more tattered than ever.
The White House confirmed today that the search in Iraq for the banned weapons it had cited as justifying the war that ousted Saddam Hussein has been quietly ended after nearly two years, with no evidence of their existence.
Democrats immediately called for Mr. Bush to explain how he and his advisers could have insisted so confidently that dangerous stocks of the banned weapons existed inside Iraq. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader of the House, said the president needed to explain why he was “so wrong, for so long.”
Mr. Bush led the U.S. effort in company with many allied nations–despite the NYT-led reports to the contrary–to stop Saddam’s continuation of development of these weapons. Since the invasion, we’ve found vials of botulin toxin, a bunch of chemical projectiles with mustard and sarin gas warheads (see page 30 of the Duelfer report at the provided link), mortar rounds containing mustard gas, uranium-tipped “dirty bomb” missiles, and a great deal more.
Yet the Left persists in their caterwauling that “Bush lied.”
“Lied” about what? Saddam was malevolent. He proved his willingness to kill using chemical weapons on his own people. He befriended terrorists; there were terrorist training camps just outside Baghdad, as well as at Salman Pak where terrorists trained to assault commercial passenger aircraft.
But still, “Bush lied.”
Now we know from the New York Times itself that Iraq had a secret nuclear program, yet the only commentary you read in the article is:
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.
What the H*ll is this? Does the Times not understand this is exactly why people hold the MSM in such scorn?
Here we have the Iraq National Assembly, duly elected by the people of Iraq in a stunning voter turnout even in the face of terrorist murder-threats, convening for the first time [Link to "Outside the Beltway"], a further vindication of the promises made and kept by Pres. Bush, and we still have to listen to the “Bush lied” mantra from the Left.
Shame.
on 16 Mar 2005 at 11:47 am 1.Howard West said …
Since there weren’t any, what were they looting? MSM is a joke.
on 16 Mar 2005 at 12:20 pm 2.jpe said …
Yeah, I’m sure that was just overlooked by tons of scientists and engineers looking for evidence of WMDs to vindicate Bush.
Sure. That’s plausible.
on 16 Mar 2005 at 3:42 pm 3.site admin said …
What’s implausible is the notion that “no WMDs were ever found” when the record clearly shows that they were.
It’s just the the MSM had to ride that “no WMDs” horse no matter what. If forty-two warheads were found (as happened in the outskirts of Baghdad) the refrain is “that’s not enough” or “they were too old”–completely ignoring that fact that Saddam was under U.N. orders to prove that he had destroyed everything, turning over all records, making his administrators available for questioning, etc.
None of that ever happened!. Saddam was in violation of the U.N. accords time after time over the twelve years following the first Gulf War, yet dipsh*ts like you on the Left could only whinge about “sanctions taking time to work.”
The only people suffering under sanctions were the Iraqi people themselves–and we had no quarrel with them.
Now, they’re free–no thanks to you malevolent ****-heads on the Left. How appropriate that one of your super-heroes, Ramsey Clark, is Saddam’s chief counsel–proving for once and for all that Saddam is truly one of your own.
on 16 Mar 2005 at 11:37 pm 4.jpe said …
Whatâ..s implausible is the notion that â..no WMDs were ever foundâ. when the record clearly shows that they were.
Sure, which is why the president had that huge “WMDs Found!” press conference. I mean, it’s just that the zionist MSM conspiracy is against Bush and hid it from the American people. Or at least, I’m sure that’s what the CIA would’ve beamed into your mind if you weren’t coated in tin foil.
on 17 Mar 2005 at 11:35 am 5.seamus said …
What about the substance of the article? Do you believe that the footage of the unlocked, unguarded, looted armories was faked by the MSM? Or do you think that someone should be held accountable for allowing Saddam’s weapons to be looted and sold God-knows-where?
on 17 Mar 2005 at 7:49 pm 6.site admin said …
The President does not behave like Clinton did. He isn’t nearly so concerned about staging events and photo-ops–especially for a hostile media.
Like Mr. Reagan, he tends to talk over the heads of the MSM and go directly to the people. And these days, with so much alternate media available, that’s quite easy to do.
Now, here’s a challenge for you: Explain to me why the evidence given in the NYT article, as well as that chronicled in the Duelfer report, do not prove that Saddam had WMD capability and the full intent of resuming WMD production as soon as the sanctions were lifted.
Also, explain to me how “Oil For Food” is not a smoking gun, and shows why France, Germany and Russia in particular tried to stymie the U.S.-led efforts to bring Saddam to heel. “Oil For Food” after all is a glaring attempt by Saddam to subvert the sanctions and bring them to an early end, all so he could get back to his grand scheme of dominating the region.
This was his M.O. How you people can ignore histry in favor of conspracy-theory conjecture is beyond me! You’re continually cut to ribbons by Occam’s Razor, and it seems like you never feel a thing!
Chemically-induced innurement to pain, I suppose.