1
   

Tons of Explosives Missing in Iraq

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 10:58 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
From http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1098677410357

Quote:
At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said US-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.


Drudge is full of ****, as usual...

Cycloptichorn


Um ... Drudge was citing NBC ... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 11:01 am
Dookiestix wrote:
I brought up a mispelling, not a typo. Big difference, but not to you it would seem...

But as both Drudge and Scott Ott are full of ****, why continue along this path of stupidity?


One man's typo is another man's misspelling.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 11:03 am
Because, Woiyo, when the IAEA puts a SEAL on something, and we see that the SEAL is still there when we show up in March, we know it wasn't tampered with. That's what the SEALS are for.

The IAEA didn't just inventory the site and then walk away with the doors unlocked.

You guys are so hosed.

From www.talkingpointsmemo.com :

Quote:
(October 26, 2004 -- 12:31 PM EDT // link // print)
Just a pit stop.

This morning MSNBC interviewed one of the producers from their news crew that visited al Qaqaa as embeds with the 101st Airborne, Second brigade on April 10th, 2003.

This is the 'search' that the White House and CNN are hanging their hats on (empahsis added)...

Amy Robach: And it's still unclear exactly when those explosives disappeared. Here to help shed some light on that question is Lai Ling. She was part of an NBC news crew that traveled to that facility with the 101st Airborne Division back in April of 2003. Lai Ling, can you set the stage for us? What was the situation like when you went into the area?
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. [/size]

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 it.



Of course, as we noted last evening, contrary to the Drudge/CNN account, this wasn't the first detachment of troops to visit al Qaqaa. That came a week earlier when explosives were in fact found in a quick spot check of the facility.

Bear in mind the the al Qaqaa facility contains a vast number of buildings. Different press reports put the number anywhere from 87 to 1100. The discrepancy, I believe, is a definitional one, depending on whether one counts major buildings or individual bunkers and storage units.


You can throw up as many fake stories and explanations for this one as you like, but the facts bear out the argument that Bush and Co. did not properly secure these explosives...

Just to recap: The NBC link given by drudge is ****. The idea that the bombs were 'already gone' by the time we got there holds no water, and contradicts earlier pentagon and IAEA statements. There is evidence we knew the bombs were there and did nothing to secure them.

This sure is a bad week for the Pres. to be taking heat on Iraq....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 11:06 am
Quote:
One man's typo is another man's misspelling.


No, it's not. If you ever worked with technical writers and literary scholars and actually STUDIED english, you might get it. But it's obvious that you don't.

You could also say one man's mistake is another man's steadfastness.

Or could you, Ticomaya?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 11:12 am
Cyclo ... Actually, it appears all you have is a pentagon official "speaking on condition of anonymity." Read your article again.

That's the only "fact" that supports the claim that Bush & Co. failed to properly secure the explosives. There are news reports that indicate the explosives were gone by the time the US arrived.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 11:14 am
It is still devestating evidence of Bush's absolute failure in dealing with Iraq.

Why would Bush defend his tax cuts on the campaign trail rather than address this issue?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 11:19 am
Dookiestix wrote:
Quote:
One man's typo is another man's misspelling.


No, it's not. If you ever worked with technical writers and literary scholars and actually STUDIED english, you might get it. But it's obvious that you don't.

You could also say one man's mistake is another man's steadfastness.

Or could you, Ticomaya?


Dookiestix wrote:
It is still devestating evidence of Bush's absolute failure in dealing with Iraq.

Why would Bush defend his tax cuts on the campaign trail rather than address this issue?


Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 11:19 am
You read the article again!

Drudge's 'report' that an MSNBC reporter saw that the weapons 'weren't there' was completely false. That's why I bolded and enlarged certain sections.

There are NO reports that they were gone at the time. I challenge you to find me one (and guess what? Drudge and CNSnews don't count).

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 11:19 am
The neocon's and their allies are spinning this one so hard they must be dizzy.

This fits into a pattern. The sack of Baghdad, the looting the the museums, the rise of the militant clerics, etc. The Bush administration apparently had not thought through the occupation of Iraq beyond the mechanics of the invasion. We are now suffering the consequences.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 11:21 am
McGentrix:

Oh, my god, and YOU should laugh?

Wow.

The neocons have nothing. Absolutely nothing. Desperation calls for desperate measures. The spin is beyond dizzy at this point.

It's pathetic.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 11:27 am
Dookiestix wrote:
Quote:
One man's typo is another man's misspelling.


No, it's not. If you ever worked with technical writers and literary scholars and actually STUDIED english, you might get it. But it's obvious that you don't.

You could also say one man's mistake is another man's steadfastness.

Or could you, Ticomaya?


I take it you work with these folks, and you studied English? Not that I don't, or haven't, but please educate me as to how this has helped you identify when a person makes a typo, and when they are misspelling a word.

I think it's pretty base to try and point out either a misspelling or a typo on these threads. Most of us are not planning on submitting our posts for a grade, nor do we desire your critique.

And McGentrix makes a point: Was your typing of "devestating" a typo, or a misspelling? You're the expert ... I'll rely on your opinion on this. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 11:28 am
Forget the typos, Ticomaya. Find me a link supporting your argument other than Drudge or CNSnews. I seriously challenge anyone to do so.

This is a f*ckup of massive proportions.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 11:33 am
http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20041026-122118-2138r
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 11:33 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Forget the typos, Ticomaya. Find me a link supporting your argument other than Drudge or CNSnews. I seriously challenge anyone to do so.

This is a f*ckup of massive proportions.

Cycloptichorn


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 11:34 am
McGentrix: We were "seriously" challenged. Is that more than just a "regular" challenge?

Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 11:43 am
From the article:

Quote:
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that Bush had ordered an investigation of the disappearance shortly after being notified by the IAEA on Oct. 15 and that officials had quickly ascertained that no nuclear material was involved.


Since we knew for a while now that Saddam was NOWHERE near in developing a nuclear weapon, why would Bush order an investigation to ascertain that "no nuclear material was involved?"

It's about the tonnage of CONVENTIONAL explosives that the insurgents are using to kill innocent Iraqi civilians, the military, and our U.S. Soldiers.

Perhaps Bush should have been more specific and asked if any "nuculer" type activity programs were missing.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 11:50 am
Interesting that nothing about this can currently be found on the nytimes website. Nothing.

Does anyone else find this odd?
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 11:53 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/politics/campaign/26campaign.html?oref=login
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 12:02 pm
Fine Dooks, you got me there. But I couldn't find it. You'd think it would be page one stuff, not buried in the politics pages.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 12:06 pm
Neither of the links you two posted contradict the direct quotations of the MSNBC reporter who was embedded with said unit which was in QaQaa, who specifically states that no search was officially done. Feel free to check out my original link again to show yourselves why your links are inadequate.

Quote:
An NBC News crew that accompanied U.S. soldiers who seized the Al-Qaqaa base three weeks into the war in Iraq reported that troops discovered significant stockpiles of bombs, but no sign of the missing HMX and RDX explosives.


Re-read my earlier post; the producer who was there clearly states that there was no organized search of the place.

It also has the oft-repeated lines,
At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Nice try though.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 06:12:28