Look at this article from the New York Times. If you read and take the article for face value. . . Why would the New York Times run an article that confirms (in the years leading up to the 2003 invasion ) Iraq had enriched uranium, secret nuclear research facilities, tabun and sarin, nerve agents etc etc. This is not the New York Times I thought I knew. Are they trying to make the Republicans look like they were telling the truth about why we went into Iraq?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-documents.html?hp&ex=1162616400&en=d6e60f288e881789&ei=5094&partner=homepage
2006-11-03 08:01:53 · 8 answers · asked by RaptureMan 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well...we were telling the truth.
I know, Its hard for you to accept it and your whole ideology is crumbling down before you but the fact is...By invading Iraq we STOPPED saddam from making Nukes.
there it is in black and white in the old gray lady herself.
Now why dont you come on over to the winning side. Youve been spoon fed lies.
2006-11-03 08:06:42 · answer #1 · answered by smitty031 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that they had materials there. I also believe that we would not invade another country for the hell of it. There are reasons for everything and I believe that we had the best intelligance on the matter prior to the war. No one knows anytyhing until feet hit the street to find out for sure. The intelligance community does not use a crystal ball. They make best guess prognosis on analyzing what has been done and what people say. They also look for evidence as best they can to aid in the guess. Untill someone opens that crate or enter that wharehouse you do not know what is inside of it at all. I striongly think that there was something there and that morethan likely it was moved or hidden very well that it has not been found yet.
2006-11-03 08:11:07 · answer #2 · answered by rdbn7734 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The article states:
"In September, the Web site began posting the nuclear documents, and some soon raised concerns. On Sept. 12, it posted a document it called “Progress of Iraqi nuclear program circa 1995.” That description is potentially misleading since the research occurred years earlier."
and...
"Some intelligence officials feared that individual documents, translated and interpreted by amateurs, would be used out of context to second-guess the intelligence agencies’ view that Mr. Hussein did not have unconventional weapons or substantive ties to Al Qaeda."
You are an idiot, a puppet, and are selling your country out to PNAC by supporting them, instead of being loyal to your country and Constitution. You're trying to use this article as just another excuse for being a traitor. Unfortunately, there's no excuse for Bush's bastardizing of our Constitution, our laws, or our country. The war on terror is a lie, hiding the fact that PNAC is taking over our government, and removing the peoples rights and protections. The war on terror is against US.
2006-11-03 10:01:12 · answer #3 · answered by tat2me1960 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The New York Times might have pronounced it if that they had any truly journalists. The as soon as fine newspaper has turn out to be a rag. Useful for packing and birdcages. Obama turns out to move the greenback and this can be a norm for him. He nonetheless blames Bush for the whole thing and some thing and that during itself is getting redundant .He is dumb as a fox. Can't ban handguns however can tax the heck out of ammo.A difference has come my peers.
2016-09-01 06:42:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are right to wonder. After all of this time why would the New York Times want to print the truth? I am totally astounded. Did they get a new editor or something? Maybe they are trying to reinvent themselves.!!!
2006-11-03 08:13:52 · answer #5 · answered by Sheila V 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess that sometimes there's just no denying the truth. Can we please explain that to the 'slow' group of liberals on here?
EDIT* - Incredible that someone would chatise you because the 'program' was started before 1991. Sigh. Thank God for Republicans. At least we'll be voting for OUR COUNTRY and NOT AGAINST it. For Security and not FOR TERRORISTS.
2006-11-03 08:04:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
they didn't have any real knowledge of what Iraq had i think many other media reported the same dam thing so what your point
2006-11-03 08:06:20 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
are you a fake repub profile?
Or are you stupid?
2006-11-03 08:04:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋