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

Oh look, CBS again - Page 3

post #81 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Is anyone still trying to figure out which side France is on?

Halliburton's side.

Next.
"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
post #82 of 148
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ParliamentLights
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?

YOU'RE flabergasted? Really?

Let me put it in a simpler fashion. CBS has story about Bush. Story is old. CBS times release of said story so that it is the most damaging to Bush.

Worse, the content of the sotry is debatable, as we have learned from the embedded CBS reporters.

I could show you a notarized letter sent by certified mail that says "My name is Dan Rather, and I want Kerry to be elected and will use my news position to further that goal"....and you guys would still claim there is no bias.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #83 of 148
No matter how many time you repeat the 'old story' lie it will never, ever, ever come true. Such is the nature of the real world.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
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 #84 of 148
Thread Starter 
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?

You're so full of shit. You KNOW they sat on the story. You KNOW it. You can't honestly expect anyone to believe that something magically changed and now they just *had* to report it in all fairness...not after Rathergate 6 weeks ago. You cannot believe that.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #85 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
No matter how many time you repeat the 'old story' lie it will never, ever, ever come true. Such is the nature of the real world.

These people are so f'ing stubborn it defies reality!
"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
post #86 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
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 #87 of 148
Given all that's happened in Iraq, the potency of the al Qaqaa story was never that it was the worst thing that has happened in Iraq. It's that it brings together in one package almost everything that's gone wrong: incompetence, abetted by denial, covered up by dishonesty, and all in one fatal brew.
"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
post #88 of 148
Okay folks let's put this to bed -- reality check:

from 'The Corner' at NRO:

Quote:
BRET BAIER: the key is the time line. let's start with the iaea. they sealed and tagged at least some of the 377 tons of missing explosives at this facility. and now in march 8, 2003, they went back to the site. the iaea says they checked on some of though explosives at the site but did not see all of explosives. they did not check on all of them. they leave and the war starts. and the next date is april 3. that is when the third infantry division arrives at the site. there you see the front gate. this is seven days before dana lewis and the 101st airborne division gets there. they engage iraqi forces who are firing on u.s. troops from inside the facility. the facility is open, they're getting engaged by iraqi forces inside the facility. the third i.d. takes them out and they do a primary search and they are not looking specifically for the iaea marked materials but it's not noted in any of the commander's reports. and then the 101st moves in and they do cursory searches and they move on, and nothing is noted. the next date is may 8, 2003, when the 75th exploytation task force comes in. they search the bunkers and don't find any of the marked material. u.s. commanders point out if you're to believe that all of this was looted between april 11 and may 8, that's 28 days, when convoys are moving up and down the road on those very roads, moving to baghdad, the u.s. troops are pushing forward. it would be tough to get 28 truckloads they say, out of that facility without being engaged by u.s. troops on those roads during that war. because at the time they point out that they were engaging anybody that was suspicious and didn't stop for a check. now today on the campaign trail in florida, vice president cheney addressed the issue of missing explosives, saying john kerry is playing arm chair general and is ""not doing a good job of it.""

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 #89 of 148
There were no searches for the weapons, and nothing more than troops looking around their immediate area, until may, so nothing is put to rest.

And now this:
Quote:
A U.S. military unit that reached a munitions storage installation after the invasion of Iraq had no orders to search or secure the site, where officials say nearly 400 tons of explosives have vanished.

Looters were already throughout the Al-Qaqaa installation south of Baghdad when troops from the 101st Airborne Division's 2nd Brigade arrived at the site a day or so after other coalition troops seized the capital on April 9, 2003, Lt. Col. Fred Wellman, deputy public affairs officer for the unit, told The Associated Press.

The soldiers ''secured the area they were in and looked in a limited amount of bunkers to ensure chemical weapons were not present in their area,'' Wellman wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press. ''Bombs were found but not chemical weapons in that immediate area.

''Orders were not given from higher to search or to secure the facility or to search for HE type munitions, as they (high-explosive weapons) were everywhere in Iraq,'' he wrote.

and
Quote:
AP Correspondent Chris Tomlinson, who was embedded with the 3rd Infantry but didn't go to Al-Qaqaa, described the search of Iraqi military facilities south of Baghdad as brief, cursory missions to seek out hostile troops, not to inventory or secure weapons.

The enormous size of the bases, the rapid pace of the advance on Baghdad and a limited number of troops made it impossible for U.S. commanders to allocate any soldiers to guard any of the facilities after making a check, Tomlinson said.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/301/...unit_at:.shtml
post #90 of 148
From the same article
Quote:
The IAEA had pulled out of Iraq in 1998, and by the time it returned in 2002, it confirmed that 35 tons of HMX that had been placed under IAEA seal were missing.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told the United Nations in February 2003 that Iraq had declared that ''HMX previously under IAEA seal had been transferred for use in the production of industrial explosives, primarily to cement plants as a booster for explosives used in quarrying.''

''However, given the nature of the use of high explosives, it may well be that the IAEA will be unable to reach a final conclusion on the end use of this material,'' ElBaradei warned at the time.

He did not specifically mention Al-Qaqaa in his February 2003 briefing to the United Nations, and the agency has not said whether it separately informed the United States.

Russia, citing the disappearance of the nealry 400 tons of explosives, called on the U.N. Security Council to discuss the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq. But the United States said American inspectors were investigating the loss and that there was no need for U.N. experts to return.

Russian U.N. Ambassador Andrei Denisov insisted that raising the issue in the council was ''practical,'' not political, saying the explosives posed a danger.
post #91 of 148
And the Iraqi minister in charge of site monitoring says there's no way the weapons were gone before the invasion.

But what are statements of eye witness facts by the people most likely to know for sure when we can mine the internet for endless bits of disconnected "data" that ultimately mitigate the very idea of "verifiable"?

Nothing is knowable, everything is contingent, the chain of association never ends, anything is possible. The need to justify an overtly lying and incompetent administration has made devoted deconstructionists of the entire republican party.

And here I thought you guys were all about rock-solid values and steadfastness. I guess it all depends on what the definition of "isn't" isn't.
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 #92 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
...so nothing is put to rest.


I heartly agree.

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 #93 of 148
I'm not a Bush Backer, but this is an interesting viewpoint from my local paper:

Quote:
Keep wary eye on election 'news'

Some media outlets and the Kerry campaign have elevated the alleged failure of U.S. forces in Iraq to secure a missing 380 tons of high explosives held at the Al Qaqaa arms depot under United Nations seal into a story of administration bungling with implicitly large consequences. But on closer look, the story loses much of its edge.

It turns out that the missing cache represents only a tiny fraction of the former Iraqi regime's arms and explosives that have been secured by coalition forces. And the missing explosives may have been removed before or shortly after the March 19, 2003 launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday that coalition forces have cleared more than 10,000 arms caches since April 2003, have destroyed more than 240,000 tons of arms and explosives, and are preparing to destroy another 162,000 tons. This total of more than 400,000 tons is a thousand times larger than the single explosives cache that has recently received so much attention. It is very hard to see evidence of serious bungling in these facts.

Secretary Rumsfeld also noted that before the war, Saddam Hussein ordered the dispersal of his military's arms away from sites known to the United Nations and U.S. intelligence. Coalition forces have found weapons stored in schools, hospitals, mosques and underground burial sites.

"Although some believe the Al Qaqaa facility may have been looted [after the invasion], there is no way to verify this," a Pentagon spokesman said Monday, as reported by The Washington Times. "Another explanation is that regime loyalists or others emptied the facility prior to coalition forces arriving in Baghdad in April."

Speaking of the missing cache, a State Department spokesman told The Washington Post, "We don't know that this site was looted. All we know is that it's not there. We don't know whether it was moved by Saddam before the war." The last reported visit to the site by U.N. weapons inspectors was in January 2003.

The Pentagon has asked the Iraq Survey Group, established by the Central Intelligence Agency to inventory Saddam Hussein's programs for weapons of mass destruction, to determine when the missing cache was taken and what has happened to it. These questions must be vigorously pursued. The administration must expect every question about its handling of the war to be given microscopic examination, particularly in election season.

Meanwhile, it would be wise to look upon efforts to sell this particular story as evidence of bad presidential leadership with a seasoned and skeptical eye.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #94 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by iPoster
I'm not a Bush Backer, but this is an interesting viewpoint from my local paper:

You're a lyer, and what about that is 'interesting'?
What isn't merely that same old partisanship through discounting reality and important facts!!
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #95 of 148
I have loved the last 8 months of lurking around here. Every vitriolic and downright hateful thing I have seen posted here about W has earned him a dime. I just got the cashed check back from the bank. I'm sure OUR president thanks all of you Bush haters for the contribution. Thanks for doing your part.

BUSH FOR PRESIDENT 2004.


8)
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #96 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
You're a lyer, and what about that is 'interesting'?
What isn't merely that same old partisanship through discounting reality and important facts!!

Liar? No sir, I did not vote for W the first time, nor I am not voting for him now! (or Kerry for that matter, but that is my own business)

What I think it is interesting that some in the press pull out an 18 month old issue days before the election, without any proof that the administration is responsible for the loss of .001% of the known munitions in Iraq. Watched Peter Jennings last night, and he made very clear that their original story from April 2003 could not even confirm that the munitions had even been there when the 101st arrived there, much less that it had been stolen...

Has the administration screwed the pooch in Iraq? Certainly, but I also don't like partisan politics (from either side) creeping into the press during election time...

FactCheck
Spinsanity
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #97 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by iPoster
What I think it is interesting that some in the press pull out an 18 month old issue days before the election,



?!?!?! For the ~10th time!!
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
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.

Did the press or the democrats force the Iraqi interim gov't to officially tell the IAEA now? Did they force the IAEA to tell the bush admin now? Did they force condi to tell bush a couple days ago, thus bringing it to the level of the presidency? NO! Everything that brought this issue to the presidential level in the past week or so happened independently of anything the media or the democrats did.

This would be an issue with or without the elections. These are the explosives likely being used to attack our troops.

All you are doing is allowing yourself to be fed lies iposter. It's not an old story, FFS.
post #98 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum

We've all enjoyed your fanatical "Bush is God" posts too. Your contribution to your Church of Bush must be tax deductible eh. Brilliant!
post #99 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by giant


?!?!?! For the ~10th time!!

lol Dude, they're not worth getting mad over. If they haven't got it yet, they never will. Let them live in denial.

Hook, line and sinker. With us or Against us.


post #100 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
lol Dude, they're not worth getting mad over. If they haven't got it yet, they never will. Let them live in denial.

Hook, line and sinker. With us or Against us.

Their insane denial of basic, fundamental reality is exactly what causes dangerous political movements.
post #101 of 148
I have yet seen you guys address the "basic realities" of moving 30-40 truckloads of RDX in 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 #102 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I have yet seen you guys address the "basic realities" of moving 30-40 truckloads of RDX in a combat zone.

That's because we are still dealing with your completely insane inability to deal with the fact that this thread's initial premise is false. We also have been dealing with your insane inability to accept the accounts of the unit's commander, spokesperson and multiple embedded reporters, all of whom are saying the exact same thing.
post #103 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
That's because we are still dealing with your completely insane inability to deal with the fact that this thread's initial premise is false. We also have been dealing with your insane inability to accept the accounts of the unit's commander, spokesperson and multiple embedded reporters, all of whom are saying the exact same thing.


I rest my case, you just don't have any way of explaning how what you want to have happend, happened (with out the magix pixie dust, of course).

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 #104 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
you want to have happend

That is projection. There is nothing 'I want to have happened' within the scope of what we've discussed here. I'm interested in the facts. You are the one who is blatantly ignoring the most basic facts of the situation. You are the one who has made a series of false assumptions regarding this situation in order to shape it the way you want it.

All I've done is posted the facts of the situation. I never said who was responsible. I never even said when it happened. I never said that the Bush admin could have prevented it. All I have done is laid out the facts.

Meanwhile, you have consistently ignored them and formed beliefs that are CLEARLY DEAD WRONG.
post #105 of 148
For instance, here's a fact:
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
And the Iraqi minister in charge of site monitoring says there's no way the weapons were gone before the invasion.

Is he right? Maybe. But what a rational person does is add it to their information stock and weigh it against the rest of their info. The sources have to be considered and accounted for in the evaluation. According to the report above, he was in a position to know and made a confident statement. Now we look for verification.

It's a data point. And when the data is collected together a picture emerges. As more data is added, parts of the picture shift and move. But the truth is found in the general trends of the information.

But you refuse to do any of that. You pick and choose according to what you want to believe, flat out ignoring mountains of info about the most basic facts of the situation, like the accounts of the unit's commander, spokesperson and multiple embedded reporters, all of whom are saying the exact same thing.
post #106 of 148
I don't find the setup hard on this, not at all. You do have the 3ID in there running around a bit more than the 101st, and earlier. But it doesn't sound like they broke out the rubber gloves.

All in all you have a pretty good setup -- but the finish screws everything up. It's too much to ask that the bad guys CLEANED the facility --- not just took what they could carry, but totally cleaned out the place. It sounds like a pro job (not to mention the machine tools that have gone missing. And to do all this with the good guys running around -- I can't see it.


I love your research abilities; you keep those of us on the right honest.

(You can have the rest of this thread and the last word.) I gotta quit this bickering!

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 #107 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I rest my case, you just don't have any way of explaning how what you want to have happend, happened (with out the magix pixie dust, of course).

The funny thing about your ranting is that you've yet to put forth a plausible explanation for the disappearance of these munitions DMZ. Please tell us how these weapons were spirited away from a site monitored as a potential WMD site? Tell us how 40 trucks snuck across the border right under our noses. Tell us how David Kay is wrong--we all know he's a loser because he decided the war was wrong after the fact. Please tell us.

Here, I'll give you start: After April 4th we no longer needed to monitor the site because we controlled the area. With that in mind or combined military brain trust decided to point the eyes in the sky to new locals in search of combatans in between the Kurdish controlled areas and the newly 'liberated' zones. Bam!!! With too few troops on the ground to maintain any sort of piece in the area, looting and rioting broke our--because thats what free societis do according to the Don. During this rioting, any and all locations which may have housed any tid-bit of value were ransacked.

Whoa stop the presses!!! The newly ungarded site was ransaked first by the common thugs who knew a guy who was planning on joining this crew of people who used to work for Saddam--part of the republican guard which mysterously disappeared. Whisper-whisper munitions...

So, over the next few days--while the planes and satellites were looking elsewhere with no military personel guarding the location mind you the stuff walked off.

Wow, look at that. I turned off my Bush-faith-O-meter and I came up with a plausable explanation. Lets hear yours. Tell us how the 40 trucks of crap where carried off under the admins noses. Tell us how the admin failed to monitor a site which was on a list of possible WMD sites. Tell us how Bush failed because either eventuality means they fucked up. They fucked up if they stopped watching the site prior to the war. They fucked up if they left a weapons site unguarded. They fucked up period!
"[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 #108 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I don't find the setup hard on this, not at all. You do have the 3ID in there running around a bit more than the 101st, and earlier. But it doesn't sound like they broke out the rubber gloves.

All in all you have a pretty good setup -- but the finish screws everything up. It's too much to ask that the bad guys CLEANED the facility --- not just took what they could carry, but totally cleaned out the place. It sounds like a pro job (not to mention the machine tools that have gone missing. And to do all this with the good guys running around -- I can't see it.


I love your research abilities; you keep those of us on the right honest.

(You can have the rest of this thread and the last word.) I gotta quit this bickering!

Thank god!!!
"[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 #109 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
It sounds like a pro job (not to mention the machine tools that have gone missing.

Yeah, and there were a shitload of 'pro jobs' during the looting, including at all sorts of weapons sites. There were all sorts of 'pro jobs' at large industrial installations of ALL kinds during the looting. This has been reported on heavily since it happened, dmz. Stop trying to play revisionist.
post #110 of 148
Remember this from just a couple weeks ago?
Quote:
Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons are disappearing from Iraq but neither Baghdad nor Washington appears to have noticed, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported on Monday.

Satellite imagery shows that entire buildings in Iraq have been dismantled. They once housed high-precision equipment that could help a government or terror group make nuclear bombs, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report to the U.N. Security Council.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...n_nuclear_dc_2
post #111 of 148
New info from David Kay:
Quote:
David Kay, the chief U.S. weapons hunter in Iraq from the beginning of the Iraq Survey Group in July until he resigned at year's end, said U.S. military officials never told him the site had been searched and the explosives found missing.

"It's a huge site," Kay said. "The 101st would have had to spend a fair amount of its force over a week to really search it in detail."

Kay said the Iraqis, when facing an attack, would typically take material such as the explosives and scatter it around the site to make a less-inviting target. But Kay said he doubted the Iraqis could have systematically removed the explosives and taken them away from Al-Qaqaa. The number of trucks necessary as well as the size and length of such an operation, he said, would almost certainly have led to its detection by U.S. spy satellites.

Kay also said none of the Iraqi military officers and scientists interviewed by the survey group mentioned hauling the explosives away.

When ISG members got to Al-Qaqaa, Kay said, the evidence of looting was extreme and he believes that is how the explosives were taken.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news...27weapons.html
post #112 of 148
How F*#king ironic!!! http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/in...st/28bomb.html


Quote:
Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday.

The Iraqis described an orgy of theft so extensive that enterprising residents rented their trucks to looters. But some looting was clearly indiscriminate, with people grabbing anything they could find and later heaving unwanted items off the trucks.

Two witnesses were employees of Al Qaqaa - one a chemical engineer and the other a mechanic - and the third was a former employee, a chemist, who had come back to retrieve his records, determined to keep them out of American hands. The mechanic, Ahmed Saleh Mezher, said employees asked the Americans to protect the site but were told this was not the soldiers' responsibility.
"[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 #113 of 148
Sums things up here quite nicely:

Quote:
Keller said in an interview yesterday that campaigns "attack the messenger" when they do not like the message. "Beating up on the so-called elite media has a nice populist ring to it, and some of it is calculated," he said. Bush campaign officials thought that "if they barked at us, we would back off. . . . We've vetted this every way we can, and we continue to do that."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct27.html
"[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 #114 of 148
Oh, here's the route the bush admin is going to try: it was the russians. Trust them, they have 'information.'

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...1153-4822r.htm
post #115 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I have yet seen you guys address the "basic realities" of moving 30-40 truckloads of RDX in a combat zone.

Maybe, if you look at that fact (the amount of overt work necessary) and consider the overwhelming evidence that says that it is in fact the case

then

and maybe then

you just might start to catch a whiff of the level of fuuck-up here
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #116 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Oh, here's the route the bush admin is going to try: it was the russians. Trust them, they have 'information.'

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...1153-4822r.htm

Hmmm... link came up blank, this one worked:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...2637-6257r.htm
Quote:
Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

October Surprise?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #117 of 148
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
October Surprise?

Bush defense department official tasked to provide explanation for possible bush defense department fuck up. Whether it's true or not we'll have to see in the future.
post #118 of 148
Great quote on Juan Cole by Nathan Brown of GWU in regard to Bush saying "our military are investigating a number of possible scenarios...":

Quote:
The reason we dont know when the explosives disappeared is that we were not securing or monitoring the site. In other words, our lack of knowledge about the date of the disappearance is itself an indication that nobody was watching one of the most important military production sites in the country. Thus, to proclaim now that we dont know what happened is not evidence of an open mind; it is evidence of an open barn door.
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 #119 of 148
Ahem, this doesn't absolve the Administration from everything else they've farked up in Iraq, but here you go: (bold by myself)

Quote:
From ABC News:
Oct. 27, 2004 _Iraqi officials may be overstating the amount of explosives reported to have disappeared from a weapons depot, documents obtained by ABC News show.

The Iraqi interim government has told the United States and international weapons inspectors that 377 tons of conventional explosives are missing from the Al-Qaqaa installation, which was supposed to be under U.S. military control.

But International Atomic Energy Agency documents obtained by ABC News and first reported on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" indicate the amount of missing explosives may be substantially less than the Iraqis reported.

The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing presumably stolen due to a lack of security was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility.

But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.

The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.


The missing explosives have become an issue in the presidential campaign. Sen. John Kerry has pointed to the disappearance as evidence of the Bush administration's poor handling of the war. The Bush camp has responded that more than a thousand times that amount of explosives or munitions have been recovered or destroyed in Iraq.

Another Concern

The IAEA documents from January 2003 found no discrepancy in the amount of the more dangerous HMX explosives thought to be stored at Al-Qaqaa, but they do raise another disturbing possibility.

The documents show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility. Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted.

ABC News' Martha Raddatz filed this report for "World News Tonight." Luis Martinez contributed to this report.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #120 of 148
Amazingly, ABC has found video footage of munitions--HMX--at the site in question. Guess what nat-says, the video was taken on April-18th...

See for yourselves: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847&page=1



A soldier looking into an explosives container.
"[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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Oh look, CBS again