It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NY times - Iraq had WMDs during U.S. invasion.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Hey, I did a search for this little tid-bit after hearing about it on the Sean Hannity show. Just wondering what everyone thinks.

NY times - Saddam's WMDs

I think it's shocking that the NY times suddenly releases this report. Maybe they see something coming?




posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   
So where is the NY times article. All I see is a Freerepublic link and a Newsmax link. There was a US gov't report that recently stated that there was NO WMD's in Iraq. It agreed with the UN.

How do you reconcile the conflicting reports? Who to believe...hmm

[edit on 13-4-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herman
Hey, I did a search for this little tid-bit after hearing about it on the Sean Hannity show. Just wondering what everyone thinks.

NY times - Saddam's WMDs

I think it's shocking that the NY times suddenly releases this report. Maybe they see something coming?


I'm guessing you didn't read either the NY Times article or the comments on FR.

They didn't say he had WMD.
They said equipment that had been monitored by the UN before the war had been looted after the war began.

The opening text on FR is just Newsmax's deceptive spin.

[edit on 13-4-2005 by AceOfBase]



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Herman, this is well below par. You even made your link appear as though there was a legitimate NYT report.

When you take a leaf out of the poster MisterRepublican's book on the Free Republic site, you are doing that more in emulation of Comical Ali than someone finding the truth. Can that do any good?



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   
The Horse's Mouth

So, um, what DID the NYT say. Any links?

Better than second- or third-hand rumors.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Actually, the NYT apologized for jumping on the WMD bandwagon and just trusting what the government fed them.



We have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged--or failed to emerge.
NYT



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Man, is newsmax trying to rip apart any possibility of them having journalistic integrity?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join