[swrate]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Brush-up on your non-partisan reading skills and reread the sentence. There's nothing remotely conflicting.

Maury

i am seing a red conflict here:

Problem four: This doesn�t quite explain how all this could be taken down a road full of heavily armed U.S. forces, under skies full of coalition warplanes. The Pentagon called the removal of that much material from the facility during or after the war �very highly improbable�:



John Shaw, the deputy U.S. undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said it,
he should be informed, so why do you deny it?

Whatever the US Commanding the Units thought, "Russian" transportation units were civil's working for private firms according to the Russians. (private terrorism?)

ps: part of the explosives porbalbly were legally evacuated, but I doubt anyone will ever find the tracing of the gone products.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by swrate:
i am seing a red conflict here:

Problem four: This doesn�t quite explain how all this could be taken down a road full of heavily armed U.S. forces, under skies full of coalition warplanes. The Pentagon called the removal of that much material from the facility during or after the war �very highly improbable�:

John Shaw, the deputy U.S. undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said it,
he should be informed, so why do you deny it?

Whatever the US Commanding the Units thought, "Russian" transportation units were civil's working for private firms according to the Russians. (private terrorism?)

ps: part of the explosives porbalbly were legally evacuated, but I doubt anyone will ever find the tracing of the gone products.

...right: removal of that much material from the facility during or after the war very highly improbable. You didn't make your point very well.

Maury

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by dialo:
Also, here's what david kay has to say:

The same David Kay who said this...?

... the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein... after 1998, it became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection, and in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated"

"Iraq was in clear material violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441"... They maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at some point to resume their programs,"

So, when David Kay says something that goes against your agenda, it's bogus. But when he says something that may remotely support your partisan bickery, he's right on? What a joke.

Same goes for the liberal population who cherry-pick John McCain's statements to portray him supporting Kerry while conveniently omitting the countless McCain quotes and campaign appearances in his absolute and definite support/endorsement of President Bush.

[RAILhead]

Dridge has dug-up some additional news...

FLASH 10.29.01 11:36:56 ET /// Soldier to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al Qaqaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons... Developing...

Stay tuned for links...

Maury

[dialo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
So, when David Kay says something that goes against your agenda, it's bogus.

No, actually the test here is for you. I don't form opinions on what one person says or doesn't say about the situation.

And look what you just did there. So since you love what he said back when he was doing thr ISG, are you and your political bias going to disregard his statements on this subject (and he is much more confident about these statments than any he's publicly made on any subject).

[dialo]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Dridge has dug-up some additional news...

Stay tuned for links...

Maury

So now they were there, huh? Do you guys get paid by the flop?

[vmpaul]

Ah, it's a beautiful new morning. So who is George Bush going to blame for this fiasco today? The troops? Kerry? the Media? Or all three?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by dialo:
So now they were there, huh? Do you guys get paid by the flop?

There was no debate thet they were there...it was a matter of when they were moved everyone's talking about.

Maury

[warmspit]

Sorry, I just have to laugh...we have actual videotape of the troops CUTTING the seals, then walking away from the facility, we have Kay, we have Iraqi government officials, we have witnesses, all pointing to looting after the invasion....and you guys still refuse to see what is patently clear to anyone with half a brain.

Further to that, the list of false and frankly lame excuses the bushco has profferred to explain it away is a long list, some of them contradictory, none of them logical.

And the blame train rests EVERYWHERE except in the oval office...this is the worst administration for having the balls to take responsibility for their own screwups.

what's that smell?....oh, I do believe its bush....toasting.

[dialo]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
There was no debate thet they were there...it was a matter of when they were moved everyone's talking about.

Let me rephase that. I didn't realize how dizzy you were from all your spinning:

So they were there after the US troops arrived, huh? Do you guys get paid by the flop?

[warmspit]

its getting even better! now drudge is claiming a soldier will claim to have removed and destroyed 200 tons of it! (of course, this is april , AFTER the videotape....

so bushco keeps throwing out any excuse, hoping at least one will stick.

so, it took 5 days for this soldier to remember it?

and lets see the contradictions thus far:

1. we only just found out about it
2. We knew about it 18 months ago
3. its a mystery
4. it was gone before we got there
5. the russians took it
6. we have satellite photos of Iraqi trucks taking it
7. it was the soldier's fault for not following orders
8. a soldier removed and destroyed it.

note that 2 contradicts 1 and 3.
note that 3 contradicts 2, 4, 5, 6, 8
note that 4 contradicts 6, 7, 8, possibly 5 and 2
note that 5 contradicts 2, 3, 6, 7, 8
note that 6 contradicts 5, 2, 1, 3, 7, 8
note that 7 contradicts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8
note that 8 contradicts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

[Troll]

What I find amazing is that the US Army can whip out a photograph of Al Qaqaa from before the invasion that shows a truck on the ground loading barrels of explosives, yet they claim to have made a mistake about Iraq having WMD ready to strike!

I mean take Powell's speech for example. They can produce a photo of a certain bunker of a certain installation on a certain day of the year prior to invasion and from it they can identify explosives on a truck yet they can't back up their claim that there were WMD under palm trees in Western Iraq or produce any photos of what they apparently KNEW was there? Same goes for mobile labs and all of the other outlandish claims Powell made.

[Cody Dawg]

Nothing is ever good enough for Dumbocraps.

[RAILhead]

I guess the KerryFans are waiting for their DNC rapid-response email to arrive...

Maury

[warmspit]

I see that none of the repubs here have the balls to address why all 8 excuses contradict each other?

[dialo]

But those 250 tons were not located under the seal of the International Atomic Energy Agency -- as the missing high-grade explosives had been -- and Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita could not definitely say whether they were part of the missing 377 tons.

Maj. Austin Pearson, speaking at a press conference at the Pentagon, said his team removed 250 tons of TNT, plastic explosives, detonation cords, and white phosporous rounds on April 13, 2003 -- 10 days after U.S. forces first reached the Al Qaqaa site.

"I did not see any IAEA seals at any of the locations we went into. I was not looking for that," Pearson said.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...ves.5839c.html

Drudge wastes our time yet again, and again, and again...

[RAILhead]

I'm sticking with what I said several posts ago (not sure what page it's on) when I said the bottom line is that it's too early to know ANYTHING for sure -- which is what Bush is saying.

All the while Kerry's running around spewing his scare tactics with the NY Times story -- what has been disproved several times over -- as thought it was the truth.

So I see than none of the dems have the balls to admit their guy jumped the gun just like Dan Rather and he shouldn't be out using this spotty story for stump material.

Maury

[dialo]

Originally posted by warmspit:
I see that none of the repubs here have the balls to address why all 8 excuses contradict each other?

Funny how we can sum all their arguments up in one short equation: p^~p

[dialo]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I'm sticking with what I said several posts ago (not sure what page it's on) when I said the bottom line is that it's too early to know ANYTHING for sure -- which is what Bush is saying.

Too early?! But just a couple pages ago you were saying this was OLD NEWS.

Originally posted by RAILhead on the first page:
This isn't NEW news, this is OLD news, rehashed and spit out right before the election.

p^~p again.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by dialo:
Too early?! But just a couple pages ago you were saying this was OLD NEWS.



p^~p again.

Come on now, I know you're more intelligent than your comments present you to be. Nevertheless, I'll break it down for you:

1) The story is old in that these issues took place a farking long time ago and reports from before the war began discussed such items. OLD NEWS. REHASHED NEWS. SImple.

2) Too early means it's TOO EARLY for people to be making firm judgments on what happened back then, just like I said.

Simple, mien kapitan, simple.

Maury

[dialo]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
1) The story is old in that these issues took place a farking long time ago and reports from before the war began discussed such items. OLD NEWS. REHASHED NEWS. SImple.

Absolutely, positively dead wrong, Maury.

Originally posted by dialo:
the claim that this is just a repackaging of an old story is a flat-out lie. It came to the media's attention because it got to the presidential last week as an official statement from the Iraqi Interim Government and the IAEA. Added to that is that fact that these explosives have likely been used against our troops. There were major recent developments that had absolutely nothing to do with the US media.

Not an old story. MAJOR developments happened with the weeks and days before the story broke, such as it becoming official AND reaching the presidential level, thus making it a major story.

2) Too early means it's TOO EARLY for people to be making firm judgments on what happened back then, just like I said.

Funny you say that, because:

Originally posted by RAILhead on page 3:
...right -- they were gone when we got there. 380 tonnes would have to have been hauled off in TRUCKS, as in BIG CARGO TRUCKS, so they were "taken" under the UN's watch.

Originally posted by RAILhead on page one:
FWIW (according to Drudge), NBC News is apparently going to post a story that states just what I stated: the explosives vanished from site in Iraq at least 18 months ago -- before the troops arrived.

Maybe you should go back in time to let your past self know that you intend to say something completely contradictory.

p^~p again.

[dialo]

Originally posted by warmspit:
its getting even better! now drudge is claiming a soldier will claim to have removed and destroyed 200 tons of it! (of course, this is april , AFTER the videotape....

so bushco keeps throwing out any excuse, hoping at least one will stick.

so, it took 5 days for this soldier to remember it?

and lets see the contradictions thus far:

1. we only just found out about it
2. We knew about it 18 months ago
3. its a mystery
4. it was gone before we got there
5. the russians took it
6. we have satellite photos of Iraqi trucks taking it
7. it was the soldier's fault for not following orders
8. a soldier removed and destroyed it.

note that 2 contradicts 1 and 3.
note that 3 contradicts 2, 4, 5, 6, 8
note that 4 contradicts 6, 7, 8, possibly 5 and 2
note that 5 contradicts 2, 3, 6, 7, 8
note that 6 contradicts 5, 2, 1, 3, 7, 8
note that 7 contradicts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8
note that 8 contradicts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Really, the BS is so thick at this point I'm numb to any other excuses they think up.

[greenamp]

Back on topic...

Did anyone see the press conference today with the soldier saying they removed 250 tons of explosives from that site? If so, what do you make of this?

[icruise]

Originally posted by warmspit:

and lets see the contradictions thus far:

1. we only just found out about it
2. We knew about it 18 months ago
3. its a mystery
4. it was gone before we got there
5. the russians took it
6. we have satellite photos of Iraqi trucks taking it
7. it was the soldier's fault for not following orders
8. a soldier removed and destroyed it.

You forgot "it was really only 3 tons."

I'm willing to keep an open mind about this to some degree, but this shotgunning of conflicting excuses doesn't inspire confidence that the Bush camapaign has a handle on what's going on.

[dialo]

Originally posted by greenamp:
Back on topic...

Did anyone see the press conference today with the soldier saying they removed 250 tons of explosives from that site? If so, what do you make of this?

Look a couple posts up. That's exactly what put Maury into a tail spin.

But those 250 tons were not located under the seal of the International Atomic Energy Agency -- as the missing high-grade explosives had been -- and Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita could not definitely say whether they were part of the missing 377 tons.

Maj. Austin Pearson, speaking at a press conference at the Pentagon, said his team removed 250 tons of TNT, plastic explosives, detonation cords, and white phosporous rounds on April 13, 2003 -- 10 days after U.S. forces first reached the Al Qaqaa site.

"I did not see any IAEA seals at any of the locations we went into. I was not looking for that," Pearson said.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...ves.5839c.html

Drudge wastes our time yet again, and again, and again...

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Icruise:
You forgot "it was really only 3 tons."

I'm willing to keep an open mind about this to some degree, but this shotgunning of conflicting excuses doesn't inspire confidence that the Bush camapaign has a handle on what's going on.

I think this whole issue is ridiculous. Considering this represents less then 1% of all explosives in Iraq at the time...

You can't be everywhere all the time.

[tie]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
1) ... OLD NEWS. REHASHED NEWS. SImple.

2) Too early means it's TOO EARLY for people to be making firm judgments on what happened back then, just like I said.

LOL, gotta love that "logic." I think that if an issue involves Iraq, you can be sure you will be correct if you just say the opposite of what spacefreak says. Whether it is Bush himself, Drudge, Fox news, some random internet tabloid, or his own "secret sources," spacefreak has a certain way of cherrypicking his info from whoever is most wrong. Ah well, it has happened yet again in yet another thread. This one was a bit more suspenseful than the typical "EXCLUSIVE: WMDs found in Iraq!!!!" post, I'll grant you that.

It is time for you guys to start making posts about how there are other issues out there, so incompetence in handling this war isn't such a big deal. The economy for example -- except Bush has no jobs program besides No child left behind. (I see Maury has already tried this.) Oh wait, spacefreak, I forgot, how many people die because of drunk driving every year? That would be a good statistic to post to put this whole war in context.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by tie:
LOL, gotta love that "logic." I think that if an issue involves Iraq, you can be sure you will be correct if you just say the opposite of what spacefreak says. Whether it is Bush himself, Drudge, Fox news, some random internet tabloid, or his own "secret sources," spacefreak has a certain way of cherrypicking his info from whoever is most wrong. Ah well, it has happened yet again in yet another thread. This one was a bit more suspenseful than the typical "EXCLUSIVE: WMDs found in Iraq!!!!" post, I'll grant you that.

It is time for you guys to start making posts about how there are other issues out there, so incompetence in handling this war isn't such a big deal. The economy for example -- except Bush has no jobs program besides No child left behind. (I see Maury has already tried this.) Oh wait, spacefreak, I forgot, how many people die because of drunk driving every year? That would be a good statistic to post to put this whole war in context.

It's obvious that you're the one not able to put this war in context.

We have the the typical liberal kooks who adamantly insisted that Saddam was harmless... that he had no serious weaponry, and now, when it's proposed that significant quantities of explosives and ingredients commonly used to build nuclear weapons are missing (irregardless of the actual evidence), all of a sudden it's Bush's fault.

Which is it, folks?

All of a sudden, the liberals are stating "But the IAEA had accounted inventories of these explosives on record... where are they, Mr. Bush?" Yet the same IAEA books that had accounted inventories of tons of liters of chemical and biological weapons.. the left portrays that these materials never really existed.

Which is it, folks?

Do you know what the most ridiculous thing I have learned in the last few days? These so-called "IAEA-sealed bunkers" were just a thread of wire no thicker than a coat hanger twisted around a door knob with a little coin stamped "IAEA". Bwahahahaha. What a joke.

Like that was going to keep these weapons out of the wrong hands.

This episode solidifies my support for the war. If all that was separating Saddam and the thugs from these weapons was a coat-hanger, then absolutely did we do the right thing by getting him and his skumbag sons the hell out of power.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I'm sticking with what I said several posts ago (not sure what page it's on) when I said the bottom line is that it's too early to know ANYTHING for sure -- which is what Bush is saying.

All the while Kerry's running around spewing his scare tactics with the NY Times story -- what has been disproved several times over -- as thought it was the truth.

So I see than none of the dems have the balls to admit their guy jumped the gun just like Dan Rather and he shouldn't be out using this spotty story for stump material.

Maury

why do all 8 excuses by Bushco contradict each other? You're not addressing that, really, you're just saying that 8 seperate explanations means they don't know anything yet.

But that doesn't explain why each explanation was meant to quell the questions in a final way, but when the questions didn't go away, they offered the next explanation.

They didn't start off saying "its possibly one of these eight explanations". Instead they said each one in turn was the answer (the most bizarre being that the russians stole it)

I realize logic is not a republican strong point , but c'mon, have the balls to address why all of the explanations contradict each other.

I can help you...because each and every one of them is a smokescreen to deflect bad press. That's because no matter how you slice it, this does not come out on Bush's assett column politically.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by Icruise:
You forgot "it was really only 3 tons."

I'm willing to keep an open mind about this to some degree, but this shotgunning of conflicting excuses doesn't inspire confidence that the Bush camapaign has a handle on what's going on.

good point. If it was only 3 tons, how did the soldier remove 200 tons?

ok, so there are NINE separate, contradictory smokescreens.

NINE. desperate much?

[Spliffdaddy]

Kerry is trailing Dubya in all major polls. fyi.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Kerry is trailing Dubya in all major polls. fyi.

so, this has to do with explosives........?

[Spliffdaddy]

It's a reflection of the fact that nobody cares about any damned explosives, who took them, nor where they went.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
It's a reflection of the fact that nobody cares about any damned explosives, who took them, nor where they went.

LOL! ostrich.

[MrBS]

What's the yield of 3 tons of high explosives? I'm pretty sure some people are going to care at some point.

~BS

[MrBS]

Originally posted by warmspit:
good point. If it was only 3 tons, how did the soldier remove 200 tons?

ok, so there are NINE separate, contradictory smokescreens.

NINE. desperate much?

It works. Lotta doublethink necessary. But for most people (not the rational and logical macnn members of course) the arguments boil down to who has more quips like that.

A: We Only just found out about it
B: We were there and opened it and then didn't guard it and now it's gone
A: It was gone before we got there
B: We were there and opened it and then didn't guard it and now it's gone
A: HA! Already used that one! I WIN!

~BS

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by MrBS:
What's the yield of 3 tons of high explosives? ~BS

Approx 5.1 tons (170% TNT equivalent) worst case.

[swrate]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
...right: removal of that much material from the facility during or after the war very highly improbable. You didn't make your point very well.

Maury

No conflict? Mr Shaw, undersecretary of defense for international technology security, is in conflict with Rumsfeld his supervisor, tons of mistakes are missing, how many none will never know,

"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units." ...

When? How?
Did they let all sorts of contractors get rid of the stuff?
Troubles for Mr Shaw, maybe wishing Bush will not be re-elected, or surely he was bribed by Kerry....
reality is stranger then fiction, but then it was only a few tons of explosives, no big deal.


looking for rainbows and found lol here again.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by warmspit:
1. we only just found out about it
2. We knew about it 18 months ago
3. its a mystery
4. it was gone before we got there
5. the russians took it
6. we have satellite photos of Iraqi trucks taking it
7. it was the soldier's fault for not following orders
8. a soldier removed and destroyed it.

Wonderful post. I am reminded of this section from Sigmund Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams:

[This] recalls vividly the defense offered by a man who was accused by his neighbour of having returned a kettle in a damaged condition. In the first place, he had returned the kettle undamaged; in the second place it already had holes in it when he borrowed it; and in the third place, he had never borrowed it at all.

A complicated defence, but so much the better; if only one of these three lines of defence is recognized as valid, the man must be acquitted.

Even old Sigmund knew how to spot a fallacious argument when he saw one.

[tie]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
We have the the typical liberal kooks who adamantly insisted that Saddam was harmless... that he had no serious weaponry

Iraq had significant quantities of explosives, and Bush let the terrorists get them. These are not WMD. Look the acronym up if you haven't yet figured it out.

[dialo]

John Pike @ Global Security says the trucks in the pentagon photos aren't at the right bunkers.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...a-imagery4.htm

[clarkgoble]

Originally posted by warmspit:
1. we only just found out about it
2. We knew about it 18 months ago
3. its a mystery
4. it was gone before we got there
5. the russians took it
6. we have satellite photos of Iraqi trucks taking it
7. it was the soldier's fault for not following orders
8. a soldier removed and destroyed it.

This is kind of silly. We knew of the cache 18 months ago as many people have linked to the stories. We only found out about it in this context because of the Iraqi government discussing it and apparent probable fact that insurgents are using the explosives in attacks. (Something not part of the earlier story, so far as I'm aware -- although I've not read all the versions of the story from earlier) So the problem here is that while the topic is the same, the facts about the topic are not. Further, there are still a lot of facts unknown. i.e. did the military remove any of the high explosives? That appears unclear at this time.

The other claims were the result of incomplete information. So you are criticizing people simply because the story was a moving target. Kind of silly since most people were going on what was in the media and the media wasn't doing too good a job of reporting it initially. I'd say there is still a lot of mystery about it and more facts to come out.

Right now I think the evidence suggests that the military took a lot of it away but may have left some which was taken by insurgents. If they had orders to clear out the site and did so only incompletely, then I think the charge that it was the soldier's fault is quite valid.

I'm sure no Democrat will admit that of course. But that's fair. I'm sure when Kerry is elected next week and similar screw ups happen Republicans will blame Kerry for any screw up anywhere in the chain of command whether Kerry knew about it or had much influence on the situation. Of course I wish this weren't so. The way the war has been politicized really is distasteful. Don't get me wrong, I think there plenty of places to validly criticize Bush and I think a lot of Kerry's criticisms are spot on. But this one really strikes me as very distasteful.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by tie:
Iraq had significant quantities of explosives, and Bush let the terrorists get them. These are not WMD. Look the acronym up if you haven't yet figured it out.

Right, and the explosives we're talking about make up one tenth of one percent of all of them. AND, we destroyed hundreds of thousands of tons already.

Maury

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Nothing is ever good enough for Dumbocraps.

None of your contradictory lies are, that is true.

[dialo]

Look what comes out right when the election is over:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html

[warmspit]

Originally posted by dialo:
Look what comes out right when the election is over:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html

convenient timing.

[dialo]

No kidding.

[Spheric Harlot]

[Spliffdaddy]

"...the newspaper quoted a group of unidentified soldiers as saying."


HAHAHAHAHAHA

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"...the newspaper quoted a group of unidentified soldiers as saying."


HAHAHAHAHAHA

"... outnumbered U.S. soldiers assigned to guard the materials watched helplessly."

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Helplessly? Do these armed soldiers - assigned to "guard" the bunkers - not have guns and weapons? Spray a few rounds at them as a warning. If they proceed... take them out.