NY Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003




 
--
NY Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003
 
September 8th, 2005  
phoenix80
 
 

Topic: NY Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003


NY Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003
NY Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003

News Max ^ | March 13, 2005 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

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."

"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.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...3/101911.shtml
September 9th, 2005  
Marinerhodes
 
 
One word question: Vindication? Not much time this morning but I will try to post later today.
September 9th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
I read the Times almost regualrily I dont recall them ever making
such a statement. On the other this is after all NewMax whose sources of information are questionable to put it mildly...

Could anyone provide a link where the NYtimes said this?
--
NY Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003
September 9th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
I read the Times almost regualrily I dont recall them ever making
such a statement. On the other this is after all NewMax whose sources of information are questionable to put it mildly...

Could anyone provide a link where the NYtimes said this?
Certainly agree with your misgivings there. The Times has been happy to outright state that the Bush Administration knowingly tricked the USA into invading Iraq and is pretty much the last news source on Earth to ever do any favors for the Republican Party. In terms of politics, I know I can't rely on the Times to be nonbiased, but its a good source for other news certainly.
September 9th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
I read the Times almost regualrily I dont recall them ever making
such a statement. On the other this is after all NewMax whose sources of information are questionable to put it mildly...

Could anyone provide a link where the NYtimes said this?
Yeah, the dateline says Sunday, March 13, 2005 10:17 a.m. EST and I didn't hear about it then and nothing until today?

This sounds very incorrect to me.
September 9th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
I read this article again, its an odd coincidence that NewsMax left out the part about WHO they spoke to, WHEN was it said, and WHERE was it said. Frankly with the little information they give, you could swap out the name of any periodical you wanted in put it in the article. I also find it odd that paper as predigous as the NY Times would make such an important admission to low grade, super conservative new source like NewsMax.
It just doesn't add up.

The Times is a liberal paper. No doubt. However Conservatives are given a voice. For example William Safire (just retired) was a well respected conservative Journalist for the NY Times for decades. The problem is with News Sources such as Drudge, NewsMax, FOX is that the dont give the liberals a fair say and then they call themselves 'fair and balanced'. Thats why most conservative news organizations are trash, with a few exceptions.
September 9th, 2005  
gladius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
The problem is with News Sources such as Drudge, NewsMax, FOX is that the dont give the liberals a fair say and then they call themselves 'fair and balanced'.
Yes they do give liberals a fair say, they have them speak their mind on Fox all the time. The difference is they don't have to go along with it, or take it as the end all of the topic and present it as facts like other left leaning news.

So they are fair and balanced, the reason youre saying its trash is because you don't like it when they challenge left wing liberal view points.
September 9th, 2005  
Spartacus
 
 
BTW
As much as I hope it is true, I think there would be more widely published conncurring data if it were.
September 9th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
The problem is with News Sources such as Drudge, NewsMax, FOX is that the dont give the liberals a fair say and then they call themselves 'fair and balanced'.
Yes they do give liberals a fair say, they have them speak their mind on Fox all the time. The difference is they don't have to go along with it, or take it as the end all of the topic and present it as facts like other left leaning news.

So they are fair and balanced, the reason youre saying its trash is because you don't like it when they challenge left wing liberal view points.
Name one
September 9th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
I read this article again, its an odd coincidence that NewsMax left out the part about WHO they spoke to, WHEN was it said, and WHERE was it said. Frankly with the little information they give, you could swap out the name of any periodical you wanted in put it in the article. I also find it odd that paper as predigous as the NY Times would make such an important admission to low grade, super conservative new source like NewsMax.
It just doesn't add up.

The Times is a liberal paper. No doubt. However Conservatives are given a voice. For example William Safire (just retired) was a well respected conservative Journalist for the NY Times for decades. The problem is with News Sources such as Drudge, NewsMax, FOX is that the dont give the liberals a fair say and then they call themselves 'fair and balanced'. Thats why most conservative news organizations are trash, with a few exceptions.
Uh, it's a very ignorant statement to put FOX News in the same catagory as Drudge and other no-credibility internet sources. FOX leans right as much as CNN leans left.

The New York Times is a liberal rag with little credibility. Remember a guy named Stephen Glass? No, well then maybe Jayson Blair? And come on, they ran 52 front page stories about Abu-Garaib. Fifty-two. Do you really think there where 52 days worth of information SO IMPORTANT they HAD to be on the front page? Of course not, it was durring an election year and they where pushing an agenda.