UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after
Friday, June 11th, 2004 - 7:59pm
It seems we are getting closer to the truth re what Saddam did with the WMD since we are finding the UN forbidden delivery systems.
When I was a boy the Dead Sea was only sick. George Burns
They had enough time.
For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I learned that, I gave Jesus a chance. ~Ron Shelton, Bull Durham, 1988
Remember the source. If you read carefully, and look at other reports, you''ll find that the materials that were taken out were literally scrapped, and we are simply finding them in junkyards, cut up and useless. Hardly a smoking gun, unless you think that the terrorists were happy to leave the UN tags on, destroy the equipment and sell it to the highest bidders, in pieces, over the last few years. I mean, they are finding this stuff in junkyards, not in raids on terrorist hideouts.
A more likely explanation might be that he was trying to get rid of a program that had been detected and was useless to him. That way, he could claim to be complying, and still not give up any hidden capabilities.
I''m sure we''ll see how this shakes out. But World Tribune is baiscally a one-man operation out of Virginia by an ex-Washington Times reporter, who has some connections in DC - it''s not an actual paper with an editorial board, or fact-checkers, or any of that stuff.
Robear
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Yes, if only he had fact-checkers, because Big Media always gets it right, which is why they are so universally trusted by the American people.
The world must know the awesome power of our gainfully employed fist! - Lord Xan
The unattainable is unknown at zombo.com!
The fact that the pros can get it wrong only underscores my point - biased websites with agendas and small staffs are not *as* good a source of information as professional news organizations, whatever their flaws.
Just because they are right wing, does not mean they''re gonna get it right. Doesn''t mean they''re gonna get it wrong either. But do a little research on the website and then tell me it''s the equivalent of the New York Times.
Robear
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030908ta_talk_mcgrath
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
I know the point you are making Robear, but the NYT might not be the paper I would use as an example. Jayson Blair anyone?
Just yanking your chain, btw.
"It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem." - Malcolm Forbes
Just because NYT screwed up with Jason Blayr still doesn''t make want to go and pick one-man-webrag over it just yet.
Xbox Live tag Gorilla800lbs
Yeah, there''s so much wrong with the New York Times that pointing out fabrication is almost redundant.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Yep. They''ve even renounced their well-known support of the WMD info, which helped sway public opinion before the war. Now if the WSJ editorial page would just grow a pair, maybe the reform of journalistic standards would begin...
Robear
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Actually, I consider this another example of what is wrong with the NYT. Before the war they put their finger in the wind and decided to agree with the consensus shared by the entire world that Saddam had WMDs - now that the wind is blowing the other way, they are following suit once more. The actual truth about issues doesn''t seem to be a factor.
Maybe the current editor is preparing to run for Kerry''s senate seat and just wants voters to recognize him...
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
So are you saying that the alternative as practiced by the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times - who admit no accountability for their biased editorializing - is preferable?
Xbox Live: hubbinsd
Editorializing is supposed to be biased.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
As opposed to what actually happened? The articles came from one reporter whose sources turned out to be both wrong, and biased, using her to push an agenda that other sources they controlled conveniently supported. It finally became clear that she was taken in by the Iraqi National Congress, the Pentagon and the White House, all of whom traded the same speculation back and forth until it looked real. Obviously, the stories eventually fell apart, whereupon the Times admitted the mistake and moved on.
That''s very different from the implication that they decided on a position to pander to the Administration, selectively published favorable stuff, and then bailed when things got tough, which is what you seem to be proposing.
Robear
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
More quality editorial from the Times. Long, but Ral especially will enjoy it methinks.
The world must know the awesome power of our gainfully employed fist! - Lord Xan
The unattainable is unknown at zombo.com!