WAR: Iraqi Daily Newspaper al-Sabah Reports Three Nuclear Warheads Found

Read my post, its already been debunked by Reuters

Originally posted by Xeven
Finding 3 nukes if true still does not justify an invasion in my mind. Yet it does take pressure off of Bush's reasoning for going to war.

are you crazy? finding one nuke is enough!!!! no one suspected that iraq had ANY finished nuclear weapons (if this report is true of course)

This how I see it,


The way this president behave and his fanatics over this war he got US into, and how his own political career is not looking good I think he will be driven into doing something as stupid as to plant some nukes somewhere in Iraq.

And this is just a conspiracy theory by marg.

UPI reports, others pick it up such as Washington Times, Iraqi Foriegn Ministry debunks according to Reuters.

The media response to this is almost a story in itself, gonna be interesting to see how this one plays out the rest of the day.

Well, UPI simply reported that the Iraqi newspaper reported it. UPI is mainly a syndicating operation though so that isn't really surprising. Washington Times only had it as part of an automatic UPI feed, and didn't run it as a proper story.

The main news organisations like BBC and Reuters would have been checking it out within an hour of it breaking in Iraq. Reuters tried to confirm, and were told by an official source the story was false. At that point Reuters DO run the story, as a debunk because they now have a named source. The BBC will not cover it unless 2 first-hand reliable sources claim it's true, which is getting pretty unlikely now, after all this time.

Halliburton had the concrete contract for the 18 foot deep layer over the WMD's.

Seriously, though, until more WMD's are found and verified by unbiased news sources such as Al-Jazeera, the BBC, and the New York Times, I will be viewing this report with jaundiced eye.

Looks like its been debunked already people, nothing to see here
as mentioned above by other poster
www.reuters.com...

It was funny to see the reactions: SEE! TOLD YOU! TOLD YOU! HA! HA! WMDS! YESSSS!! um... what?

Originally posted by curme
It was funny to see the reactions: SEE! TOLD YOU! TOLD YOU! HA! HA! WMDS! YESSSS!! um... what?

same thought. And the only post that had some useful sense but the ones with links to news was that one by Phoenix who correctly mentiond about Iraqi WMDs in Lybia.
Do we have a proper discussion about those anyway? I know nearly everbody jumps on the mainstream conspiracy stuff but would be good to have a serious discussion about Libya.

True or not, finding these now wouldn't particularly look good at all for Blair or Bush.

I mean, for a year and a half, "They are there. We just haven't found them yet. They are there."

Then, "Okay, well, our intelligence wasn't very solid, there aren't any. We now know that there are none. We didn't lie about it or anything, we really thought there were, but it is now fully evident that there are no WMDs."

Now it would be "Yeah, all that apologising and stuff, forget it. We were right all along. It was rock solid. See? See? We told you."

... Honestly, if that were what I heard, I'd be voting for the other guy anyway. You know what John Stuart said: (In imitation of Gore's and now Kerry's election strategy)

"If I do nothing to embarrass myself, then they'll have to vote for me, I mean come on, the other guy is still eating paste!"

"The al-Sabah daily paper is said to be funded by the coalition and it may be considered biased in its reporting"

hmmm...

and, it's also interesting that bush family chum (rev. moon) OWNS the washington times, the only other news source that is reporting this story.

???

who owns UPI?

rev. syung yung moon (spelling?).

If it is true, what are you Bush haters going to say now? Your whole argument might be on its way to a complete fall out. I hope the story is true but i doubt it.

I think a lot of people have forgotten the first lie here. It was not that Bush said Iraq had WMD it was that he said we have proof that Iraq has WMDs. He sited documents that he KNEW (and was informed by the CIA beforehand) were forged documents. Yet he chose to tell the world that these were conclusive proof that we needed to go into Iraq. That's the first lie here that no matter how many WMD they may find in Iraq will still be a betrayal of the trust and confidence of the american people and the world.

If Iraq had them they would have used them. If they do exist the chances that they were planted are pretty damn good. We occupied Iraq for more than one year and never found any WMD..........now that the new Iraqi regime (CIA infested) has taken over within two weeks they find the WMD. Could not come at a better time for the Bush 2004 camp........

In my humble opinion.

Originally posted by J0HNSmith
I think a lot of people have forgotten the first lie here. It was not that Bush said Iraq had WMD it was that he said we have proof that Iraq has WMDs. He sited documents that he KNEW (and was informed by the CIA beforehand) were forged documents.

If you are refering to Joe Wilsons yellowcake saga both the US and UK government reports say the Iraqi attempt to buy it was actually true and there has been much recent media debunking of Wilsons credibility because of these reports.

Or are you refering to something else?

We always knew that those that illegitimately occupy the white house and iraq would pull one or more stunts prior to the democratic convention and prior to the november election. It has been widely discussed on ATS, major media and by elected officials, so this stunt preceding the democratic convention should come as no surprise to those that support the occupying junta and those that do not.

In other news, the price of bananas in the republic continues to rise.
.

Originally posted by Phoenix

If you are refering to Joe Wilsons yellowcake saga both the US and UK government reports say the Iraqi attempt to buy it was actually true and there has been much recent media debunking of Wilsons credibility because of these reports.

Or are you refering to something else?

This about sums it up in a nut shell. There are over 6,880 sources and articles you can look at that say about the same thing on the web, I picked out this one because I think it outlined the betrayal accurately.

www.house.gov...

Originally posted by J0HNSmith
This about sums it up in a nut shell.

No it doesn't. It says nothing about the treasonous outing of a CIA agent and the cover up of the same. This alone is grounds for impeachment, but the spineless supporters of the junta repeatedly disregard this fact with impunity evading the reality that Generalissimo Bush is a traitor.
.

News is all about fallout,not the truth. The nukes may be bogus, but the fallout is still "Maybe they DID have something". Never knowing is different from knowing for certain they didn't.
The fallout is still positive for Bush.

Bush's media machine is using rumor, hearsay and classic propaganda techniques to create fallout that will be positive for the campaign.

Add to that 'Iran's nuclear machine', the upcoming 'election attack' and 'Sandy Berger' which was to be the ouverture for the GOP trying to blame Clinton for 9/11!!! (www.nytimes.com...)

The Kerry machine is trying to catch up in the rumor dept: 'Halliburton', 'Fahrenheit 9/11' and 'the American Enterprise Institute' which are lovely subjects to scare people with.

Unfortunately, it still appears as if the Bush machine is always one step ahead of the rest. If this whole thing is a boxing match, they are clearly orchestrating finely planned 'punch-counterpunch' attacks, whereas the Kerry campaign has yet to find its rhythm.

Perhaps it's just too hard to find an alternative voice when your friends are the same.
www.nytimes.com...