or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Oh look, CBS again
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Oh look, CBS again - Page 2

post #41 of 148
Let's see here? ElBaradei is up for reappointment. Bush opposes his reappointment. ElBaradei wants to get rid of Bush. IAEC releases conveniently timed report that left of center media distorts to slander Bush. Kerry has new ad out immediately. I'm going to take a wild guess that Kerry supports ElBaradei?

Sounds like a conspiracy involving the UN. I guess that's old hat these days?
post #42 of 148
I'm with Scott on this one. Screw the girlie-man little silly- putty explosives. It's the timing that's wrong!

I agree. It's a conspiracy. And both the Iraqi government via the general director of the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology(who wrote the letter) and El-Baradei are in on it!!!!!!

See if we approve those extra $70B now!
post #43 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
so....do you mean that this from Drudge is not true?:

Absolutely, and I've already posted 3 times detailing why and how.
post #44 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
now, doubtless they are all lies

That person was not on the ground and, according to a journalist that was actually there, "There wasn't a search. The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around."

Furthermore, anything the 101st says that deals with detail should be discounted since they were HORRIBLY wrong on al tuwaitha, the most well known site of Iraq's former nuclear program. WhereTF was the 'real-time intelligence' on that? That was just plain idiotic and showed that they had absolutely no clue what was going on.

The problem with your denial is that we can't even approach the issue of whether the stuff was there or not because you are continuing to ignore that all reports on the ground say that the site was not thoroughly searched and that there was lots of ordinance and explosives.

But why even try to get you to engage in a rational discussion about this? Your blind partisanship is making you refuse to recognize that there were actually events in the last month that brought this to everyone's attention.
post #45 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I think you've all missed the point. The point is the LIBERAL media was going to hold this until the most inconvenient time for Bush. It was a delibrate effort to influence the election, even if it was a big fuck up for the administration. CBS is apparently on a quest to destroy any credibility it had left.

I stopped reading this thread after this post. I'm flabbergasted.

"deliberate effort to influence the election."

Pointing out the candidates faults is what happens during elections. What alternate universe are you living in?
post #46 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Absolutely, and I've already posted 3 times detailing why and how.

....then, specifically, what news report is he referencing that does not exist?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #47 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
....then, specifically, what news report is he referencing that does not exist?


Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Your blind partisanship is making you refuse to recognize that there were actually events in the last month that brought this to everyone's attention.
post #48 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
according to a journalist that was actually there, "There wasn't a search.

That's simply not a statement she is qualified to make. This contradicts:

Quote:
Originally posted on from a .mil address on KerrySpot.com
I can tell you what happened at my squad level. When we arrived there, humvees with Mark-19's and other mounted weapons immediately secured the parameter with appropriate manpower backup. On the foot level we broke up into squads and went building to building and cleared them; mind you, we couldn't do them all. But we found what had been typical finds, caches of AK-47's, artillery rounds and bullets. There was absolutely no talk of a big find, and what I could sense no worries of anything that should have been there. Of course, we were still worried about the possibilities of chemical weapons but they never panned out.

I am a little perturbed at the gross mischaracterization of what went on there. From what I remember of the NBC crew, they did not go out with us, and they may have in fact been asked to not to go on the search with us, due to the dangers that may have possibily come up. Now this part is my opinion, but don't you think that if they had gone out with us they would have video?

Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Furthermore, anything the 101st says that deals with detail should be discounted........they had absolutely no clue what was going on.

The 101 strawman regiment? Really?


Quote:
Originally posted by giant
But why even try to get you to engage in a rational discussion about this?

As in the case of treating any disorientation, it is my job to attempt to reorient you to reality.


What truly is a case of "We don't know what happened to the RDX" has been turned, by partisans such as yourself into what Kipling termed truth "Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools". The IAEA says 'we were worried that Saddam would clear out the goodies if under attack' -- your response? You ignore even the possibility of movement. We have emails, presumably from people on the ground that say a search was performed WITH THE KNOWLEDGE of what was there -- your response? 'the 101st is bunch of dummies', again, you ignore the any possibility EXCEPT the one you want. 15 dumptruck loads of RDX, etc. would mean many, many more tractor-trailors, some say 40 or so that would be neccesary to transport that quantity of explosives. Presumably the 'clueless' members of out armed forces smiled and waved the "freedom fighters" through a panacea that was greater Baghdad, following the liberation.

We know we had guys there, we know that they searched, we know the IAEA was worried that SH would move the weapons, we know that IAEA had this missing weapons information, but chose to leak release it on the eve of an election -- an election involving the president and some personal squabbling.


But in the end, for you, there is nothing more, or less, to the story than Bush's bumbling -- nothing more than a proof-positive that Bush is a misguided, nefarious, fool. Your partisanship has limited your ability to discuss this rationally.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #49 of 148
A couple pieces of info:
Quote:
MR. McCLELLAN: ... the interim government informed that these munitions went missing some time after April 9th of 2003

That's 5 days after the first US troops that we know of arrived.

When did bush find out?
Quote:
MR. McCLELLAN: ...And the International Atomic Energy Agency informed the United States mission in Vienna on October 15th about these -- this cache of explosives that was missing because of some looting that went on in Iraq toward the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom, or during and toward the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Q When did the President find out?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said, we were informed on October 15th. Condi Rice was informed days after that. This is all in the last, what, 10 days now.

Q She was informed days after October 15th?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and she informed the President...

But there's nothing new about this story right? Not this or what I posted the Fing times. Not new at all
post #50 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
That's simply not a statement she is qualified to make. This contradicts:

Her story is verified in full by the UNIT"S COMMANDER:
Quote:
White House officials reasserted yesterday that 380 tons of powerful explosives may have disappeared from a vast Iraqi military complex while Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq, saying a brigade of American soldiers did not find the explosives when they visited the complex on April 10, 2003, the day after Baghdad fell.

But the unit's commander said in an interview yesterday that his troops had not searched the facility and had merely stopped there for the night on their way to Baghdad.

The commander, Col. Joseph Anderson, of the Second Brigade of the Army's 101st Airborne Division, said he did not learn until this week that the site, known as Al Qaqaa, was considered sensitive, or that international inspectors had visited it before the war began in 2003 to inspect explosives that they had tagged during a decade of monitoring.


Colonel Anderson, who is now the chief of staff for the division and who spoke by telephone from Fort Campbell, Ky., said his troops had been driving north toward Baghdad and had paused at Al Qaqaa to make plans for their next push.


"We happened to stumble on it,'' he said. "I didn't know what the place was supposed to be. We did not get involved in any of the bunkers. It was not our mission. It was not our focus. We were just stopping there on our way to Baghdad. The plan was to leave that very same day. The plan was not to go in there and start searching. It looked like all the other ammunition supply points we had seen already."

here

Funny how you can write such a long rant while being so dead wrong from every angle.
post #51 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
I want to echo Giant's point...

IT'S NOT AN OLD STORY!

Jeebus you people are dense!

[snip!] (Could have been interpreted as an insult)

This seems to be an old story:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...6/223708.shtml

"Feb. 2003 UN Report: Saddam Moving Explosives From Al-Qaqaa

The United Nations nuclear watchdog group first reported that Saddam Hussein had begun moving stockpiles of explosives from his Al-Qaqaa nuclear weapons facility a month before the U.S. invaded Iraq.

The February 2003 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, first reported Tuesday by the Fox News Channel, severely undermines claims by the New York Times, CBS News and the Kerry campaign that the Al-Qaqaa explosives went missing only after the U.S. gained control of the facility."

"Fox correspondent Bret Baier detailed the chronology of events at Al-Qaqaa for "Special Report with Brit Hume":

* "In January 2003, inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency went to the Al-Qaqaa storage facility, tagging and sealing the large stockpile of powerful conventional explosives, HMX and RDX.

* "In February 2003, IEAE chief Mohamed ElBaradei reported to the United Nations Security Council that some explosives had been removed from Al Qua Quaa - 377 tons remained.

* "On March 8, 2003, IEAE inspectors made their last check of the facility before the war. The IAEA said that included a spot check on some - but not all - of the sealed explosives.

* "The war started March 19. After the Army's third division moved through here on their way to Baghdad, the first US troops stopped in to Al-Qaqaa on April 9.

* "A Reuters camera crew embedded with the Scouts from the 101st Airborne Division arrived at the storage facility, did a quick search noting a number of bunkers filled with explosives - but nothing marked by the IAEA.

* "On April 10, the Second Brigade of the 101st arrived there and spent the night.. An NBC crew was with them. A cursory search was conducted. Again, nothing marked or tagged by the IAEA was spotted. The Second Brigade left the next day, pushing forward to Baghdad.

* "US weapons inspectors, the Iraq Survey Group, arrived at the site on May 27, conducting a full search of the 32 bunkers - and they did not find any of the IAEA-marked explosives."

Baier's report continued:

"If one large truck contains ten tons, US commanders say it's highly unlikely that insurgents managed to take 38 truckloads worth of explosives out of the facility in that time.

"The roads were filled with convoys pushing to Baghdad, clogged with supplies and communications lines stretching all the way back to Kuwait - all being watched closely by unmanned aerial vehicles like the Jointstars and the Predators to protect the troops rear flank and to spot unusual activity.

"Defense Secretary Rumsfeld - asked about the missing explosives in a radio interview today - said the specifics are under investigation by the Iraq Survey Group. But he chose to point out that Saddam Hussein moved many weapons and explosives before the war.""

Maybe these were different explosives than the NYT's/CBS explosives? It would be hard to find IAEA marked crates in 1000 buildings if you're just passing through.


Aside: Bob Woodward can't get an interview with John Kerry? (Interview on O'Reilly right now).



Aries 1B
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
post #52 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
A couple pieces of info:

That's 5 days after the first US troops that we know of arrived.

Now we did have some track of the explosives, but then lost them?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #53 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by Aries 1B
This seems to be an old story:

The point of whether it's an old story or new story is that the drudge bit and certain people in this thread claim that CBS was sitting on this to release for the election. THEY DID NOT. MAJOR CHANGES HAPPENED IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS AND DAYS WRT THIS STORY.

Do I need to list YET AGAIN all of the things that have happened this month regarding the subject or is everyone up to speed on why this is in the media again and that liberal media conspiracy theories regarding it are TOTALLY off-base?
post #54 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Funny how you can write such a long rant while being so dead wrong from every angle.

His story conflicts with several others that describe a cursory search.


Why won't you admit that the SH was fully expected to move the weapons, and why won't you adress the logistics of moving 40 truckloads of contraband through a combat zone?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #55 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
His story conflicts with several others that describe a cursory search.

The Unit's Commander:
Quote:
But the unit's commander said in an interview yesterday that his troops had not searched the facility and had merely stopped there for the night on their way to Baghdad.

The commander, Col. Joseph Anderson, of the Second Brigade of the Army's 101st Airborne Division, said he did not learn until this week that the site, known as Al Qaqaa, was considered sensitive, or that international inspectors had visited it before the war began in 2003 to inspect explosives that they had tagged during a decade of monitoring.

Colonel Anderson, who is now the chief of staff for the division and who spoke by telephone from Fort Campbell, Ky., said his troops had been driving north toward Baghdad and had paused at Al Qaqaa to make plans for their next push.

"We happened to stumble on it,'' he said. "I didn't know what the place was supposed to be. We did not get involved in any of the bunkers. It was not our mission. It was not our focus. We were just stopping there on our way to Baghdad. The plan was to leave that very same day. The plan was not to go in there and start searching. It looked like all the other ammunition supply points we had seen already."

NBC reporter:
Quote:
Lai Ling Jew: When we went into the area, we were actually leaving Karbala and we were initially heading to Baghdad with the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. The situation in Baghdad, the Third Infantry Division had taken over Baghdad and so they were trying to carve up the area that the 101st Airborne Division would be in charge of. Um, as a result, they had trouble figuring out who was going to take up what piece of Baghdad. They sent us over to this area in Iskanderia. We didn't know it as the Qaqaa facility at that point but when they did bring us over there we stayed there for quite a while. Almost, we stayed overnight, almost 24 hours. And we walked around, we saw the bunkers that had been bombed, and that exposed all of the ordinances that just lied dormant on the desert.

AR: Was there a search at all underway or was, did a search ensue for explosives once you got there during that 24-hour period?

LLJ: No. There wasn't a search. The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around. But as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons, nothing to keep looters away. But there was at that point the roads were shut off. So it would have been very difficult, I believe, for the looters to get there.

AR: And there was no talk of securing the area after you left. There was no discussion of that?

LLJ: Not for the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. They were -- once they were in Baghdad, it was all about Baghdad, you know, and then they ended up moving north to Mosul. Once we left the area, that was the last that the brigade had anything to do with the area.

AR: Well, Lai Ling Jew, thank you so much for shedding some light into that situation. We appreciate i

Sorry, bud, but here we have both the unit commander and an embedded NBC reporter saying the EXACT SAME THING.

And, sorry, but al tuwaitha showed beyond a doubt that you can't listen to anything those kids say about what specifically was or was not there.
post #56 of 148
And, dmz, do you understand yet that major changes happened in this that brought it back into the media and how drudge was wrong (as he always is these days) to claim that there was nothing new?
post #57 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
And, dmz, do you understand yet that major changes happened in this that brought it back into the media and how drudge was wrong (as he always is these days) to claim that there was nothing new?


....the terrorists had magic pixie dust to move the weapons?

"That's right Ibrahim, the first Ziggurat on your left, and then straight on till morning."


I
GIVE
UP

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #58 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz

I
GIVE
UP

I
POSTED
IT
THREE
F_ING
TIMES

I then posted more 8 posts above your last one.

Not to mention that, in addition to all of the things that happened this month, it's believed that these explosives have been used against our troops in since the time we found out from the bush admin that 'combat operations in Iraq have ended.'
post #59 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
The point of whether it's an old story or new story is that the drudge bit and certain people in this thread claim that CBS was sitting on this to release for the election. THEY DID NOT. MAJOR CHANGES HAPPENED IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS AND DAYS WRT THIS STORY.

Do I need to list YET AGAIN all of the things that have happened this month regarding the subject or is everyone up to speed on why this is in the media again and that liberal media conspiracy theories regarding it are TOTALLY off-base?

I'll check this stuff out again, but I'll tell you this: if the NYT, CBS and Democratic Party have accused a sitting President in Wartime of criminal negligence/gross incompetence by losing 380 TONS of high explosive and THEN it is found that the explosives disappeared BEFORE American troops invaded, then even Al Franken will cast his vote for George W. Bush along with a bunch of other pissed off Americans.

Aries 1B
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
post #60 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by Aries 1B
I'll check this stuff out again, but I'll tell you this: if the NYT, CBS and Democratic Party have accused a sitting President in Wartime of criminal negligence/gross incompetence...

This thread is about the media and this story. Show me where the NYT or CBS did what you claim.

This story would be just as big with or without the election, and for all of the many reasons outlined above.
post #61 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by Aries 1B
"Fox correspondent Bret Baier detailed the chronology of events at Al-Qaqaa for "Special Report with Brit Hume":
* "In February 2003, IEAE chief Mohamed ElBaradei reported to the United Nations Security Council that some explosives had been removed from Al Qua Quaa - 377 tons remained.

Key words being SOME and 377 tons remained.
Quote:
* "On March 8, 2003, IEAE inspectors made their last check of the facility before the war. The IAEA said that included a spot check on some - but not all - of the sealed explosives.

It's pretty obvious that you only need a spot check if things haven't changed inside those bunkers since the last time you were there.
Pretty logical to assume they would've done more if piles of boxes/containers had seemed missing.
Quote:
* "A Reuters camera crew embedded with the Scouts from the 101st Airborne Division arrived at the storage facility, did a quick search noting a number of bunkers filled with explosives - but nothing marked by the IAEA.

Keyword being quick. By the way, did we secure those bunkers full of explosives? Hmmmm
Quote:
* "On April 10, the Second Brigade of the 101st arrived there and spent the night.. An NBC crew was with them. A cursory search was conducted. Again, nothing marked or tagged by the IAEA was spotted. The Second Brigade left the next day, pushing forward to Baghdad.

"Cursory". <<<<Performed with haste and scant attention to detail: a cursory glance at the headlines. >>>>
Quote:
* "US weapons inspectors, the Iraq Survey Group, arrived at the site on May 27, conducting a full search of the 32 bunkers - and they did not find any of the IAEA-marked explosives."

Forty seven days later they finally do a "full search". Brilliant. Who needs a convoy of trucks when you have 47 days to do the job?

Can't believe all this needs so much explaining. Even if Bush came out and admitted we fucked up royally some of these guys would still blame someone else. They've seen this admin. pass the buck so much these last four years they must think it's a virtue.
post #62 of 148
Here, I'll even detail why this is in the media:

Within the past 3 weeks or so the Iraqi interim gov't officially told the IAEA that these explosives were missing after April 9, 2004, which means during the invasion and after after the first US troops arrived at the site. The IAEA told the US and, according to McClellan, Bush found out 'days after' the 15th, meaning some time last week. Since the time when the Bush admin said 'combat operations in Iraq have ended' these explosives were likely used to attack our troops. It's a situation that might have been possible to avoid.
post #63 of 148
More info from MSNBC verifying what both the UNIT'S COMMANDER and the EMBEDDED REPORTER have said as well as giving us a more detailed timeline:
Quote:
Now, NBC's Jim Miklaszewski just went on MSNBC with this follow-up ...

Following up on that story from last night, military officials tell NBC News that on April 10, 2003, when the Second Brigade of the 101st Airborne entered the Al QaQaa weapons facility, south of Baghdad, that those troops were actually on their way to Baghdad, that they were not actively involved in the search for any weapons, including the high explosives, HMX and RDX. The troops did observe stock piles of conventional weapons but no HMX or RDX. And because the Al Qaqaa facility is so huge, it's not clear that those troops from the 101st were actually anywhere near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX. Three months earlier, during an inspection of the Al Qaqaa compound, the International Atomic Energy Agency secured and sealed 350 metric tons of HMX and RDX. Then in March, shortly before the war began, the I.A.E.A. conducted another inspection and found that the HMX stockpile was still intact and still under seal. But inspectors were unable to inspect the RDX stockpile and could not verify that the RDX was still at the compound.

Pentagon officials say elements of the 101st airborne did conduct a thorough search of several facilities around the Al QaQaa compound for several weeks during the month of April in search of WMD. They found no WMD. And Pentagon officials say it's not clear at that time whether those other elements of the 101st actually searched the Al QaQaa compound.

Now, Pentagon officials say U.S. troops and members of the Iraq Survey Group did arrive at the Al QaQaa compound on May 27. And when they did, they found no HMX or RDX or any other weapons under seal at the time. Now, the Iraqi government is officially said that the high explosives were stolen by looters. Pentagon officials claim it's possible -- they're not sure, they say, but it's possible that Saddam Hussein himself ordered that these high explosives be removed and hidden before the war. What is clear is that the 350 metric tons of high explosives are still missing, and that the U.S. or Iraqi governments or international inspectors, for that matter, cannot say with any certainty where they are today.
post #64 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by Aries 1B
I'll check this stuff out again, but I'll tell you this: if the NYT, CBS and Democratic Party have

You forgot the Iraqi government and the UN via the AEIE.[/QUOTE]
Quote:
accused a sitting President in Wartime of criminal negligence/gross incompetence by losing 380 TONS of high explosive and THEN it is found that the explosives disappeared BEFORE American troops invaded, then even Al Franken will cast his vote for George W. Bush along with a bunch of other pissed off Americans.

Gotta love that "exxaagggerated" indignation.
It was a ridiculous, bloody, unnecessary and expensive war. Funny thing is it's taken some of you quite long to get pissed about it. Enjoy the Hook-Line-N-Sinker Kool Aid.
post #65 of 148
I really hate living on this fucked up new right wing bizzaro planet where nothing bad about Bush's policies is ever ever ever really true.

Not if it smashes down your door and fucks your dog, not if it blows up in your face, not if it weighs 300 lbs and takes a dump in your living room.

All the Bush White House has to do is say, "did not" and a squad of sycophants will talk themselves blue with baroque fantasies about how the OVERT FUCKING EVIDENCE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR MOTHERFUCKING FACES somehow doesn't exist, or has been conjured up by "partisanship", or doesn't mean what logic and a two year old's grasp of cause and effect makes perfectly clear.

Bush is currently going around calling Kerry's point that they let bin Laden slip away at Tora Bora "wild speculation", even though that fact was widely reported at the time and was the consensus opinion of the military on the ground.

And he knows that. But he also knows that just throwing any brazen fucking ridiculous alibi out there will muddy the waters and get his horde of butt monkeys yammering away (Maybe it happened in a dream! Maybe all will be well in the fullness of time! Maybe Hillary did it!), just as has happened in this thread.

If there is one thing that I will forever despise this administration and its craven, amoral apologists for is the gung-ho, frontal assault on the very notion of reality.

Has there ever been a president in the history of America that was so quick, so shameless, so insanely overt about simply lying, over and over again, about anything that casts it in a bad light?

And has there ever been such a self professed rabble of the citizenry who are so pleased to be fucked by a cadre of anti-democratic thugs which holds them in perfect contempt, and who are so delighted to regard their aching assholes as a badge of honor?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #66 of 148
A good article to complement the above:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...65431098444910

Quote:
Kull, who has been analyzing U.S. public opinion on foreign-policy issues for two decades, said misperceptions of Bush supporters showed, if anything, that hold that the president has over his loyalists.

The roots of the Bush supporters resistance to information very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally into the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush (news - web sites) showed in its immediate wake, he said.

This appears to have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters and an idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion would be critical of his policies or that the president could hold foreign-policy positions that are at odds with his supporters.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #67 of 148
I wonder who could have sold all those powerful explosives to Saddam? Some have suggested the US did. Clever but false.

Munitions Overkill
The story behind the story of Saddam's lost explosives.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
Quote:
Kudos to the Kerry-Edwards campaign for responding on a dime to the news that some 380 tons of high-grade explosives have gone missing from the Qaqaa munitions depot near Baghdad.

The story was first reported on Monday by The New York Times and CBS News; by Tuesday, the Times headline was the featured visual in a new Kerry campaign ad damning President Bush for having "failed to secure" the cache. "This is one of the great blunders, one of the great blunders of this Administration," says the junior Senator from Massachusetts.

But here's something our Democratic friends might keep in mind: The next time you try to set a land-speed record for demagoguing an issue, first check if the story has wheels. In this case, it doesn't.

In the late 1980s, Saddam Hussein's regime purchased large stocks of the explosives HMX, RDX and PETN from suppliers in China, Yugoslavia and--deep breath now--France.

....

Is anyone still trying to figure out which side France is on?
post #68 of 148
That's where the Republican-loyalist spin machine is now?

Is it not humiliating to be so beholden to such a dishonest and failed presidency?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #69 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
I wonder who could have sold all those powerful explosives to Saddam? Some have suggested the US did. Clever but false.

Munitions Overkill
The story behind the story of Saddam's lost explosives.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT


Is anyone still trying to figure out which side France is on?

If you really mean what your post is suggesting, then you have to accept that US is (you use "is" not "was" yourself) funding, supporting and joining sides with Osama and Saddam.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #70 of 148
I just ungave up. Sleep AND Coffee -- can't beat it.

RDX Problem resolves itself

Quote:
In the light of the unearthed contemporaneous CBS report, the NYT's use of an interview with the Col. Anderson is totally worthless. They interviewed the wrong unit commander. It was a 3ID outfit that searched the place with the intent of discovering dangerous materials nearly six days before. The 101st had no such mission.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #71 of 148
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html


Maybe they took the missing pixie dust with them to Syria?

Quote:
Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 25/01/2004)

David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.

In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam.

"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #72 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
If you really mean what your post is suggesting, then you have to accept that US is (you use "is" not "was" yourself) funding, supporting and joining sides with Osama and Saddam.

Exactly.

It is boring the monotony with which Scott moves light years away from any relationship to facts. The increasingly ingenious methods he devises to defend inherently contradictory positions though are an art form in themselves.

Here's some background on this one so we can all see his true genius:

This report names US oil profiteers and sanctions breakers

Basically _- what the hell, here's a quote:

Quote:
Major American oil companies and a Texas oil investor were among those who received lucrative vouchers that enabled them to buy Iraqi oil under the United Nations oil-for-food program, according to a report prepared by the chief arms inspector for the Central Intelligence Agency.

The 918-page report says that four American oil companies - Chevron, Mobil, Texaco and Bay Oil - and three individuals including Oscar S. Wyatt Jr. of Houston were given vouchers and got 111 million barrels of oil between them from 1996 to 2003. The vouchers allowed them to profit by selling the oil or the right to trade it.

I know Scott has an idee fixe about the Oil for food programme so that news will probably be disturbing but it's not the real point. Where it links in is that it seems Mr Hussein used all this money to buy arms in violation of sanctions.

It doesn't matter who he bought them from or not - the thing is he used US dollars from US companies gained in violation of UN mandates.

If the US didn't give him the cash the sanctions wouldn't have been broken.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #73 of 148
That's only very small piece in the puzzle:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

Quote:
One aspect of Saddams strategy of unhinging the UNs sanctions against Iraq, centered on Saddams efforts
to infl uence certain UN SC permanent members, such as Russia, France, and China and some nonpermanent
(Syria, Ukraine) members to end UN sanctions. Under Saddams orders, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(MFA) formulated and implemented a strategy aimed at these UNSC members and international public
opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions and undermining its subsequent OFF program by diplomatic
and economic means. At a minimum, Saddam wanted to divide the fi ve permanent members and foment
international public support of Iraq at the UN and throughout the world by a savvy public relations campaign
and an extensive diplomatic effort.
Another element of this strategy involved circumventing UN sanctions and the OFF program by means of
Protocols or government-to-government economic trade agreements. Protocols allowed Saddam to generate
a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. The successful implementation of the Protocols,
continued oil smuggling efforts, and the manipulation of UN OFF contracts emboldened Saddam to pursue his
military reconstitution efforts starting in 1997 and peaking in 2001. These efforts covered conventional arms,
dual-use goods acquisition, and some WMD-related programs.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #74 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Maybe they took the missing pixie dust with them to Syria?

<- frustration at how ridiculous your posts are.

Kay DOES NOT believe that there were any significant WMD transfers to syria or even any WMD transfers, but left the possibility open (likely to put the heat on syria more than anything). He later went over this point at the senate committee:
Quote:
My belief that they did not move large stockpiles of WMD to Syria is based on my conclusion that there were not large stockpiles to move.

It can't be stated any simpler. The breakdown in the Iraq -> WMD threat theory isn't that they weren't found, it's that we know they weren't there to find.

And from the NYT @ the time
Quote:
Dr. Kay said there was also no conclusive evidence that Iraq had moved any unconventional weapons to Syria, as some Bush administration officials have suggested. He said there had been persistent reports from Iraqis saying they or someone they knew had see cargo being moved across the border, but there is no proof that such movements involved weapons materials
post #75 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
<- frustration at how ridiculous your posts are.

Kay DOES NOT believe that there were any significant WMD transfers to syria or even any WMD transfers, but left the possibility open (likely to put the heat on syria more than anything). He later went over this point at the senate committee:

It can't be stated any simpler. The breakdown in the Iraq -> WMD threat theory isn't that they weren't found, it's that we know they weren't there to find.

And from the NYT @ the time


don't be frustrated, giant.

-- you can't account for the RDX's removal in a combat zone, and that Kay also said SH's MO would be to scatter the contents of the bunkers, and you must admit that it is likely that some of SH's stuff went over the border.

remember:
Quote:
"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

I think "needs to be relsoved" is the key phrase here.

(this would go alot faster if you would just admit I'm right)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #76 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I think "needs to be relsoved" is the key phrase here.

No, the key is that whatever went over the border was not this threatening arsenal the admin was going on and on about in the buildup to the war.

What's amazing is that even after being proven wrong time and time again, you guys still haven't learned your lesson about becoming all area 51 about EVERY political situation.
post #77 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
No, the key is that whatever went over the border was not this threatening arsenal the admin was going on and on about in the buildup to the war.

What's amazing is that even after being proven wrong time and time again, you guys still haven't learned your lesson about becoming all area 51 about EVERY political situation.

This is a non-argument and dmz is wrong anyway

The fact is that, as stated above, it would take 40 trucks to remove this gear.

If it went to Syria (and it didn't for this and many other reasons) but if - then it is an even bigger mess-up by the US.

A 40 truck convoy heading from outside Baghdad to the Syrian border and across and no-one sees a thing: I think that would be called "Intelligence Failure". Again.

But don't worry - it didn't happen.

Now back to the real cock-up of the disappearing super-explosives.....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #78 of 148
Look! It's a Bird! It's a plane!

It's Al Qeda making off with the RDX!!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #79 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Look! It's a Bird! It's a plane!

No its an cybercriminal! Holy internet malfunction Batman!

KAPOW.

(sorry)
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #80 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
I really hate living on this fucked up new right wing bizzaro planet where nothing bad about Bush's policies is ever ever ever really true.

Not if it smashes down your door and fucks your dog, not if it blows up in your face, not if it weighs 300 lbs and takes a dump in your living room.

All the Bush White House has to do is say, "did not" and a squad of sycophants will talk themselves blue with baroque fantasies about how the OVERT FUCKING EVIDENCE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR MOTHERFUCKING FACES somehow doesn't exist, or has been conjured up by "partisanship", or doesn't mean what logic and a two year old's grasp of cause and effect makes perfectly clear.

Bush is currently going around calling Kerry's point that they let bin Laden slip away at Tora Bora "wild speculation", even though that fact was widely reported at the time and was the consensus opinion of the military on the ground.

And he knows that. But he also knows that just throwing any brazen fucking ridiculous alibi out there will muddy the waters and get his horde of butt monkeys yammering away (Maybe it happened in a dream! Maybe all will be well in the fullness of time! Maybe Hillary did it!), just as has happened in this thread.

If there is one thing that I will forever despise this administration and its craven, amoral apologists for is the gung-ho, frontal assault on the very notion of reality.

Has there ever been a president in the history of America that was so quick, so shameless, so insanely overt about simply lying, over and over again, about anything that casts it in a bad light?

And has there ever been such a self professed rabble of the citizenry who are so pleased to be fucked by a cadre of anti-democratic thugs which holds them in perfect contempt, and who are so delighted to regard their aching assholes as a badge of honor?

Fucking-A addabox! You are my hero today!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Oh look, CBS again