|
Media outlets invested in our defeat in Iraq have put forth serious efforts to discredit the reasons for going to war. One only need hear the absolute certainty in Tim Russert's voice to know that the liberal media considers the Iraq WMD issue over and done with. After countless repetitions of no WMD, you would think that people were thoroughly trained. It comes as no surprise that when the Saddam Tapes came to light, they had to be dealt with. The first salvo in the liberal
medias unsuccessful attempt to deep-six the tapes came from Newsweek, when they
published The Saddam Tapes, What They Dont Prove a week before the
presentation of the tapes. The
writers, Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff, stated the tapes were taken without
permission from an FBI-run translation center. They never asked the government why they
gave the CD an UNCLAFFISIED label and shipped it out to a translation agency
without knowing what was on it. It
was from there that the CD ended up at my front door. They could have seen the canceled checks
for services rendered had they asked. Newsweek then trotted out the years old"
response. According to this
argument, since the tapes are years old, they are insignificant. The only relevant issue is whether the
discussions took place during the time frame when Next came ABCs World News Tonight
broadcast and Nightline segment three days before the presentation at the
Intelligence Summit, a private conference where intelligence professionals and
concerned citizens can discuss intelligence and national security matters away
from the normal bureaucratic constrictions. To ABCs credit, they did play a
segment on Hussein Kamel stating how This contentious section can be read
either that Saddam had our best interests in mind two years before the war, and
warned both In preparation for their
story, ABC interviewed a native Iraqi that not only knew Tikriti dialect,
military and Baath Party jargon, but had actually addressed Saddam in similar
meetings, General George Sada. According to General Sada, ABC asked him
to listen to the tapes, and he stated that Saddam was probably discussing an
attack through third parties to set up plausible denial if he were accused. He suggested that Saddam made the
outburst of terrorism is coming during Tariq Azizs briefing, then realized he
was on tape and came up with the "warning to cover himself. This possibility adds yet another layer
of complexity. Brian Ross went on
to interview General Sada for forty minutes, attempting to get a sound bite to
dismiss the tapes. The general knew
his intention and didn't oblige; so this man, probably the most qualified man in
the world available to the media, was omitted from ABC's
story. Early on Saturday February 18th, the
morning of the presentation, CNN ran a special on how the inspectors found
nothing in A common media dismissal technique is to
state that the tapes dont prove that WMD was in
The liberal medias wishful thinking
extends to print media also. On
With the posting of the
documents and tape transcripts to the
Foreign Military Studies Office site at The Iraqis had provided the U.N. with
declarations on their chemical and missile program, and were confident that they
had handled all the technical questions on verification. However, they acknowledged numerous
times on the tapes that the biological declaration had so many gaps that their
allies on the Security Council, The AP story quotes Hussein
Kamel as stating We played by the rules and paid the price. The immediate context is his reiteration
of this statement from the foreign minister as a response to the United
Nations. He later states on page 6
of DOCEX Saddam 030306: It is possible, Sir,
they have a problem that is a great deal bigger than the biological file: The
types of weapons, the materials we imported, the product which we told them
about, and the degree of their use. All of that was not correct. And all of them
do not know. We did not say that we used them against
On page 7 of the same
document: On the
nuclear file, Sir, we are saying that we disclosed everything? No, we have
undeclared problems in the nuclear field, and I believe that they know them.
Some teams work and no one knows some of them. Sir, I am sorry for speaking so
clearly. Everything is over. But, did they know? No, Sir, they did not know; not
all the methods, not all the means, not all the scientists, and not all the
places. In this
section, Hussein Kamel apologizes for speaking clearly, implying that the
members of the Revolutionary Command Council were aware they were being taped
and guarded their speech accordingly. By "everything is over," does he
mean that the program is finished?
If so, why are there still "undeclared problems with the nuclear
file?" Saddam
makes an interesting comment in another taped meeting (ISGQ-2003-M0004444 page
5) prior to the presidential site inspections: When they pass Tikrit they are
going to Al Makhoul. This we are learning from experience, between Tikrit and
Makhoul the distance is 70 km, so we will know when they leave. We know that is
a real complication, there is a complication... we do not need to divulge our
position. I will tell them to please come in...this is what we have... we are going to move them
during the week, take the entire Makhoul area...we dont want to give up our
position and dont need to
the targets that we want them to deploy
we exhaust
them so the real targets get lost. Intelligence from 1997
indicated that prohibited items were being held at Makhoul, and it was the only
presidential site where an inspection was originally requested. It must have been understood among
the attendees what "them" was going to be moved. We are left to guess at its meaning, but
its a safe bet it was something Saddam wanted kept away from the Special
Commission. Another intriguing tape is
ISGQ-2003-M0007133. It discusses
retaining the expertise in PC-3, the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, by
dispersing the engineers throughout other ministries and adjusting their pay and
benefits so they will be available when needed. Near the beginning of the meeting, one
of the speakers states: . . .
The decision was made that this project should be included in the Industrial
Military Organization, with confirmation from you, Sir, that the preservation of
the unity of this project is a must. Because it is a unique
experience. If Saddam really had a change of heart,
and completely complied with U.N. resolutions, then why are they speaking of
preserving the unity of the nuclear weapons project by hiding the technicians in
other ministries? This fits nicely
with the account of the scientist burying uranium enrichment material in his
garden. The writer of the AP story,
Charles J. Hanley, is firmly in the "no weapons" camp. Although he states with assurance that
all the weapons were destroyed in 1991, in a The liberal media will continue to dissect any further information on the Iraqi weapons program according to their template that Bush lied, people died. With the continuing release of documents, it will be interesting to see how long they can keep it up before they finally admit "We were all wrong."
Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|
