Friday, January 27, 2006

Bush Lied... NOT!

Just back from a working road trip up to the Ft.McMurray Tarsands and what's this?
Former Iraqi Airforce General Georges Sada, the number two ranked General in Saddam Hussein's airforce, has gone public with HOW Saddam hid his WMDs in Syria prior to the 2nd Gulf War!


Damn that felt good. Thanks MadOgre.

Reports are that General Sada will be meeting with the U.S. officialdom in the immediate future, particularly with members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Other tidbits from the book include the fact that Osama Bin Laden visited Iraq many times during the mid-1980s.

Sada's book isn't the first time news has broke regarding the hiding of Iraqi WMDs. Previous reports were largely ignored by the midstream media. Hell, as of tonight, a search of of the keywords 'wmd' and 'sada' show no hits at all.

"In April 2004, US Vice President Dick Cheney stated to the press that he had seen reports regarding Hussein's WMD being moved to Syria.

Further, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on December 23, 2002, stated: "'Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria.'" See article in the Fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly .

American press gave those words little attention since the nation was caught up in Christmas celebrations and vacations."

Conservatives have long charged that the midstream media either distorts or ignores news that doesn't agree with their pre-conceived left wing notions of reality, (not that we needed any more proof of that.) I'm reminded of comments the late great Robert Heinlein made regarding people who think that way:

"Anyone who thinks of the world in terms of what it ought to be, Instead of what it is, isn't ready for the final exam."


slicknfun said...

don't think it's a testimony that can be trusted. especially since he seems to be collaborating so well with the Bush administration officials. it's probably another PR campaign directed by George W. Inc.

Hamm172 said...

This guy wasn't the first to report these things. Or do you merely reject their credibility because they're supportive of the Bush Administration? If we're going to challange credibility, then throw out all the U.N. testimony that there were no WMD in Iraq. The U.N. has now been PROVEN to be corruptable, and it's historical fact that they conspired with Hussein to steal Billions of Dollars in the Oil-for-Food scam.

P.S. Nice photographs from Japan. I Enjoyed them.

slicknfun said...

true. I question the credibility of all parties involved, since the stake is probabbly the iraqi oil. everyone speaks up the part of the truth that suits its purpose. UN officials (USA and Europe, as well) used the "food for oil" program to get their hands on some oil/dollars on the side. Those Apache helicopters and M1A2 Abrams don't run on water, do they?

Hamm172 said...

One way to gauge their credibility is through their actions. What fruit is falling from their tree, so to speak. When the previous Bush administration liberated Kuwait, did the Americans take over the Kuwaiti oil fields?


Iraqi oilfields have an estimated 120 Billion Barrels of oil reserves, more than in Saudi Arabia. If, as you say, the Americans are only interested in stealing their oil why haven't they turned the Iraqis oil fields over to Exxon and the other American oil companies?
Iraq, as a soviet client state, nationalized all the foreign oil companies in the 1960s. They're only now beginning to allow private ownership of their industries, and Iraq's new democratically elected government limits foreign ownership to no more than 45% of those privatized companies.
I think instead, that we'll see the Americans will be happy to have Iraq as a politically stable trading partner.
Do they need Iraq's oil? Not really. Hell, the Alberta tar sands in nearby (and stable)Canada contain an estimated 1,700 to 2,500 Billion barrels of oil, dwarfing the combined reserves in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

supporting links:\2005-12-7\143.htm\2006-01-17\156.htm

slicknfun said...

OPEC seems to disagree with some of the figures.