Iraqi weapons found but Looted, Iraqi Weapons report bribes!

[HereticPB]

[Headline] "Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says," New York Times yesterday. "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." Now, anybody have a red flag going up here yet with just this paragraph? Okay. I'm sure you do. Did The Times notice its own red flag in its own opening paragraph? No, it does not. "The Iraqi official, Sami al-Araji, the deputy minister of industry, 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." This is in weeks after Baghdad fell in April of 2003. The deputy minister of industry's name is Sami al-Araji, and he said his account was based largely on observations by government employees and officials who either worked at the sites or lived near them. He said, "'They came in with cranes and the lorries and they depleted the whole site. They knew what they were doing, they knew what they wanted, and this was sophisticated looting.' 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."

All right, now, let's just recount this blatantly and as succinctly as we can. The New York Times' purpose in reporting this story is to try to embarrass the administration. It wants to lay the blame for the movement of these materials and equipment on Bush and our military. But I think The Times has made a grave miscalculation here, folks. The entire argument by the Democrats, the left in the media for years now has been that George Bush lied about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, that the purpose of the war was faulty, the CIA was wrong and so forth, and we ought not even approve what Bush is doing now. We shouldn't even approve of the fact that there's democracy breaking out because Bush lied about why we went to Iraq. We had an entire 9/11 Commission and a report that was based on the assumption that Bush lied. We had weapons inspectors return from Iraq after searching for weapons telling us there were none and if we're to believe the New York Times, much of what they have said and most of the criticism against this president have now, by virtue of their own story, been completely wrong.

Now, I have been saying for years on this program that I suspected these materials and weapons had been moved. I couldn't prove it but it never made sense to me that all the world's best intelligence agencies and experts could be so completely wrong about Hussein and his efforts. So now what will John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Carl Levin say? What will Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton say now? Are they going to apologize to the pot for attempting to sabotage the war effort for the last several years on the basis he lied about the existence of these weapons? Will they go to the Senate floor and announce that the president was right and they were wrong? Ha-ha. Will they take responsibility for their slanders against the president? The answer is no, no, and hell no. They'll admit nothing. Even though they are always wrong, and yet they are considered the most intelligent, progressive, and wise among us. It is an absolute joke. And what of Michael Moore and all his propaganda? Will he be asked to return all those phony awards he received for his phony movie? No way. He's going to continue to make movies, he'll be applauded by the Hollywood left, the Democratic Party for his public service. I just want to see how long the mainstream media will give attention to this huge story if at all.

Let's see if they give credit where credit's due and give discredit where discredit is due. Because the New York Times has shown at least for yesterday that it's willing to report about this, although I feel certain that they want the world to focus on the timing of the removal of the material and equipment rather than it's existence, and this story does the best it can to hide the fact the stuff was there, but they can't hide it very well if their main focus is the fact that it was looted. So basically what we have here is a New York Times undermining its own position all these years, undermining the position of the left, and the Democratic Party, there were weapons that had ingredients for nuclear capability. They were looted. Of course they were looted! That's the whole point. Where are they now? That's what everybody should be asking, not saying that Bush had lied about this. And there's even more to back up the notion that those weapons were there.

Here's more from this bombshell New York Times story yesterday, bombshell to me. I guess it's not gotten much play out there, has it? You know, it's fascinating here to watch. The New York Times' big story yesterday, it's all about how these serious weapons in Iraq were looted after we invaded Baghdad. And of course this is nothing more than a rehash of the story they tried to run, they did run, they tried to gin people up against Bush one week before the election, remember that? Same thing, weapons looted, weapons missing, the whole thing. It's just amazing. I don't know how else to describe it. Still trying to drum up anti-war sentiment, Bush is incompetent, Bush is a boob. It's just amazing. They can't get off of it. It illustrates they're stubborn and they're hell-bent on convincing people of this, to hell with everything else that might be going on in the world, factual or otherwise. But in the process, they end up admitting that the weapons were there all along, and that horrible weapons were there. So Bush could not have lied about it. And yet the whole basis, if there's a foundation for the Democratic Party's current anti-war position, it is that Bush lied. And, of course, that's the foundation of Michael Moore's stupid piece of propaganda. It's that Bush lied. Bush didn't lie, and the New York Times, as much as said so yesterday.

Now, there has to be a reason why the rest of the mainstream press which normally regurgitates whatever the New York Times publishes, and it still could happen on World News Tonight and the other Nightly newscasts because the New York Times is in fact the managing editor of network newscasts these days, let's make no mistakes about that. So it could well be. We'll have to wait till tonight till after the Nightly News shows to see if they do pick up on this, but it hasn't been picked up yesterday as far as I can see, and I think I know why. Two reasons. A, it's old and rehashed and nothing new, and the big reason is -- (laughing) -- can't start trumpeting this thing or they'll have to come out and admit they were wrong about Bush lying. And they'll not admit they're wrong no matter what. Look at CBS and the forged documents. They will not admit that they are wrong, and I'm talking here particularly about Dan Rather and the staff that's either been asked to resign or fired.

But listen to some of the stuff that they say was looted here. "Dr. Araji 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 dormant program on unconventional weapons. After the invasion, occupation forces found no unconventional arms, and C.I.A. inspectors concluded that the effort had been largely abandoned after the Persian Gulf war in 1991. Dr. Araji said he had no evidence regarding where the equipment had gone. But his account raises the possibility that the specialized machinery from the arms establishment that the war was aimed at neutralizing had made its way to the black market or was in the hands of foreign governments." Yeah, and some of this stuff, you wait, it's going to be found in Syria in time. You just wait. And I pointed out at the time: some of this stuff was miniaturized. You could miniaturize some of this stuff and have it fit in these pocket calculators that computer nerds wear in their shirts. They can make it that small to get it -- not just computer nerds, a lot of people, fine Americans wear pocket guards, particularly in the red states, don't misunderstand me. But this stuff could be miniaturized to that point.

"As examples of the most important sites that were looted, Dr. Araji cited the Nida Factory, the Badr General Establishment, Al Ameer, Al Radwan, Al Hatteen, Al Qadisiya and Al Qaqaa. Al Radwan, for example, was a manufacturing plant for the uranium enrichment program, with enormous machine tools for making highly specialized parts, according to the Wisconsin Project. The Nida Factory was implicated in both the nuclear program and the manufacture of Scud missiles. Al Qaqaa, with some 1,100 structures, manufactured powerful explosives that could be used for conventional missile warheads and for setting off a nuclear detonation. Last fall, Iraqi government officials warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that some 377 tons of those explosives were missing after the invasion. But Al Qaqaa also contained a wide variety of weapons manufacturing machinery, including 800 pieces of chemical equipment. The kinds of machinery at the various sites included equipment that could be used to make missile parts, chemical weapons or centrifuges essential for enriching uranium for atom bombs. All of that 'dual use' equipment also has peaceful applications - for example, a tool to make parts for a nuclear implosion device or for a powerful commercial jet turbine."

Yeah. Right. That's what was going on. Now, here's the second story. Have it right here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. This is from the UK Telegraph, "Saddam Hussein's regime offered a $2 million (£1.4 million) bribe to the United Nations' chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for weapons of mass destruction. Rolf Ekeus, the Swede who led the UN's efforts to track down the weapons from 1991 to 1997, said that the offer came from Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign minister and deputy... The news that Iraq attempted to bribe a top UN official is a key piece of evidence for investigators into the scandal surrounding the oil-for-food programme."

Well, hold it. All right, that's all well and good, and, by the way, what did it cost Hussein to bribe Scott Ritter? A couple of Big Macs and a woman 13 years old outside the drive-through window? Here's the bottom line, folks, this is the bottom line. Let's go back to the first paragraph. "Saddam Hussein regime offered a $2 million bribe to the UN chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for WMDs." Why? If there weren't any, why? Why start bribing people about this? Two million just to the chief inspector? What was it he doing to some of the underlings? Why bribe anybody if there were no weapons of mass destruction? If George W. Bush were lying about all of this, why does this story even get past the editors anywhere? There couldn't have been a reason to bribe anybody. There weren't any weapons of mass destruction, Bush lied about it. A-ha, my friends, the chickens are coming home to roost!

[Lord Worm]

There's no damned nuclear weapons in Iraq.

[Omega]

Because they were hidden and removed long before the war, you're right Worm.

[Bryan]

So the New York Times could not possibly be an objective news source for reporting this?

My God, it never ends.

The rest of my reply pending...

EDIT: After doing a little research, I can't find anything to back up the New York Times on this one. Not even Fox News, which would love to shed more doubt on the argument that there were never WMDs in Iraq.

Someone tell me if they find something official that substantiates this claim. It seems to me that if this were true, and able to be proven, President Bush would be very happy. Not that the military and the CIA not being able to realize that WMDs were being looted is a good thing, and not that it wouldn't trouble me; but going to war on a lie, or even on faulty intelligence troubles me much more. Partisan bullshit be damned.

I would rather have weapons be found so we don't look like douche bags.

But, until someone can prove that there are, or were weapons after UN sanctions, and when we went to war... I'm just going to have to say that there is not sufficient evidence that suggests that Saddam Hussein was in breach of UN resolutions.

[Viper]

Bryan, we did find a few small stockpiles of some older weapons and missiles that were both a breach of 1441. I've proved that multiple times here.

I remember reading all the reports after the war started of looting at these facilities. Seemed way too planned to me back then. Also, what of this bribe?

[Bryan]

Where's the credibility? That's my question.

[Viper]

See, here it is. We get proof that Iraq had the weapons and none of you guys are saying, "We were wrong. Bush and every major intelligence agency on the planet were right. The war is just as Iraq was in breach of 1441."

Is is so hard to believe every major intelligence agency with the same conclusion and that with an advance warning of several months that Iraq could have had a distribution plan just waiting for an occasion like this? I know I would.

[Bryan]

Sure, it's possible. I knkw I would have one.

So where are the dangerous WMDs that threatened our national security?

Old mortar shells in a bunker? I'm in fear, really.

[Viper]

They. Were. Removed.

"377 tons of those explosives were missing after the invasion. But Al Qaqaa also contained a wide variety of weapons manufacturing machinery, including 800 pieces of chemical equipment. The kinds of machinery at the various sites included equipment that could be used to make missile parts, chemical weapons or centrifuges essential for enriching uranium for atom bombs."


^That was from just one facility of several dozen. You do the math and try and tell me that isn't a frikkin threat to everyone. We just had a huge Anthrax scare at the Pentagon.

[Bryan]

Okay.

Where's the nuclear weapon?

Hell, where's the uranium?

I'll tell you what that equipment is good for, Jimmy.

EDIT:

Wait.. that equipment "COULD BE USED FOR.."

What else can it be used for?

EDIT 2:

Al Qaqaa, with some 1,100 structures, manufactured powerful explosives that could be used for conventional missile warheads and for setting off a nuclear detonation. Last fall, Iraqi government officials warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that some 377 tons of those explosives were missing after the invasion. But Al Qaqaa also contained a wide variety of weapons manufacturing machinery, including 800 pieces of chemical equipment.

The kinds of machinery at the various sites included equipment that could be used to make missile parts, chemical weapons or centrifuges essential for enriching uranium for atom bombs. All of that "dual use" equipment also has peaceful applications - for example, a tool to make parts for a nuclear implosion device or for a powerful commercial jet turbine.

nvm, stop looking.

SOURCE (FULL ARTICLE!!!)

[Viper]

lol, the thing is, I've been pointing this stuff out since the war began. This isn't new.

Tell me this. Who the hell steals 377 tons worth of explosives? What the hell are you transporting that in? Who steals a tool to make parts for a nuclear implosion device or for a powerful commercial jet turbine? Who exactly do they plan on selling it to, Boeing?

[plebben]

To me nothing in the new york times report is anything near proof.
They are citing an Iraqie politician...
What, is his word heavenly truth just because he speaks against saddams regime?
In what NYT reported there is nothing that indicates that he puts forward anything to prove his stance, he just puts out claims.

On the second issue, they tried to bribe him but still they didnt find anything even though the bribe was refused.

Originally Posted by Viper

Who exactly do they plan on selling it to, Boeing?

No, but Airbus. You all know any europeans would do anything to help saddam.

[Bryan]

Iraq isn't exactly a third world country, there are different things they could have been using that equipment for to expand.

This is also interesting:

Dr. Araji, whose tenure with the ministry goes back to the 1980's, is now involved in plans to use the sites as manufacturing centers in what the ministry hopes will be a new free-market economy in Iraq. He said that disappointment at losing such valuable equipment was a prime reason that the ministry was determined to speak frankly about what had happened.

"We talk straight about these matters, because it's a sad thing that this took place in Iraq," Dr. Araji said. "We need anything that could support us here."

"When you have good factories that could support that move and that transformation," he said, "it would be good for the economy of the country."

Hmm.. Who would possibly steal equipment to delay the formation of a free market economy in Iraq?

Plebben: lol, who knows? He may have accepted the bribe.

Or maybe he's being bribed to say the things that he's saying?

I guess we just can't tell!

[plebben]

Besides, Both Iran and North Korea would be interested in buying parts for nuclear energy facilities.

edit:
But Rolf Ekeus isnt really the man who would accept a bribe if you ask me.

[HereticPB]

Jesus Christ you people are thick headed and stupid!

[Bryan]

That pains me. Your approval means a lot to me.

I would like to apologize though. I would like to apologize for always seeing ways to doubt the claims of others. It must be a curse. A curse that hurts many people.

I'm sorry I can't think the way you would like me to. I guess one freedom that we'll never lose is the freedom to do as we're told. With that, you may remain secure, my friend.

[Viper]

I just told you guys that this is not new and the NYT is just re-running stuff that we've been saying for years now. You want credibility and you want concurring reports, well, here is a concurring report from the older past reports.

A charge of bribary is made and all you can do is suspect a reverse bride?

Answer this question. Why do you not believe the worlds top intelligence agencies?

[Omega]

Originally Posted by plebben

To me nothing in the new york times report is anything near proof.
They are citing an Iraqie politician...
What, is his word heavenly truth just because he speaks against saddams regime?
In what NYT reported there is nothing that indicates that he puts forward anything to prove his stance, he just puts out claims.

On the second issue, they tried to bribe him but still they didnt find anything even though the bribe was refused.


No, but Airbus. You all know any europeans would do anything to help saddam.

The left just don't want to believe period. No matter the evidence.

[Haver]

Originally Posted by Viper

Answer this question. Why do you not believe the worlds top intelligence agencies?

Because they told the world that Iraq was a threat, and as a result, thousands and thousands of people died on false evidence.

[plebben]

Originally Posted by Viper

I just told you guys that this is not new and the NYT is just re-running stuff that we've been saying for years now. You want credibility and you want concurring reports, well, here is a concurring report from the older past reports.

A charge of bribary is made and all you can do is suspect a reverse bride?

Answer this question. Why do you not believe the worlds top intelligence agencies?

Because two planes flew into the WTC and one into pentagon?