quote:

Originally posted by occrider So wait, the Americans recognize the monumental value of bombing the dump yet fail to track, what must be a very visible undertaking, the movement of 300 tons of explosives?

Its not monumental or brain science. You know of an ammo dump - you put a bomb on it. As mentioned before, they probably knew the Iraqis moved ammo out, but they still were going to bomb it none the less.

And contrary to popular belief the USA does not know what is happening in every square foot of Iraq at every minute of every day for the past 10 years.

quote:

Huh? We use the nbc reporter's accounts to dispute the facts of the case and when the reporter elaborates with greater detail we're not to trust them? I'm missing something here ...

Yup.

I don't know if this is the very same NBC reporter who's account has been used. For all I know she could have been some extra on the assignment making up some story today to get some air time and a promotion. Like I said, I never trust a reporter - I don't care if she is arguing for 'my side' doesn't make her credible, especially if we have two inconsistant reports coming out of the same mouth.

The great thing about how I solve the issue is that you don't even need to use a reporter's account on this - you can use your own common sense and think for yourself that the Iraqis were smart enough to move their most valuable explosives from known sites days if not months ahead of bombardment.

quote:

Perhaps Kerry should, however, in this case the silence is nothing but an indication that the Pentagon realised that they fu*ked up.

Nope, you are throwing in conjection.
There is a lot of reasons to remain quiet.

Here is one: My own personal theory is that the Pentagon simply could not confirm or deny this report (much like Kerry) and simply chose to stay quiet until they got all their own internal facts straight.

quote:

If someone accuses you of something you didn't do the typical response is to defend yourself ...

So everyone who has pleaded the fifth or said "no comment" is guilty?

Why, what an interesting discovery and novel approach to justice! We can get rids of courts and all that lousy bureaucracy and lawywers tommorow! Occrider just discovered a novel way to find out if somebody is guilty of innocent - if he is guilt he will remain quiet, if he is innocent he will tell us so!

Thanks

Occrider, come on - I can't believe you of all people have been swept up with this tide of political-motivated bias. Are you listening to what you are saying? You are sounding more like Opus (no offense there Opus, I'm a big fan of all your recent tin-hat accomplishments ). What, just a couple months ago I could of sworn you were arguing in one thread that just because somebody doesn't say something does not mean they are guilty.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

Last edited by Yoepus on Oct-26-2004 at 22:59

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Its not monumental or brain science. You know of an ammo dump - you put a bomb on it. As mentioned before, they probably knew the Iraqis moved ammo out, but they still were going to bomb it none the less. And contrary to popular belief the USA does not know what is happening in every square foot of Iraq at every minute of every day for the past 10 years.

Apparentely you didn't catch one of Opus's refereces:

quote:

Given the size of the missing cache, it would have been difficult to relocate undetected before the invasion, when U.S. spy satellites were monitoring activity at sites suspected of concealing nuclear and biological weapons. "You don't just move this stuff in the middle of the night," said a former U.S. intelligence official who worked in Baghdad. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...-home-headlines

Clearly the US blanketed Iraq with aerial surveillance drones as well as satellite coverage in the search for possible WMD sites. They would have clearly took note of large shipments from known major weapons dump that was a likely candidate for nuclear/biological weapons storage. One would like to think that the US was not so stupid as to let the Iraqis reposition all their supplies and bomb empty positions.

quote:

Yup. I don't know if this is the very same NBC reporter who's account has been used. For all I know she could have been some extra on the assignment making up some story today to get some air time and a promotion. Like I said, I never trust a reporter - I don't care if she is arguing for 'my side' doesn't make her credible, especially if we have two inconsistant reports coming out of the same mouth. The great thing about how I solve the issue is that you don't even need to use a reporter's account on this - you can use your own common sense and think for yourself that the Iraqis were smart enough to move their most valuable explosives from known sites days if not months ahead of bombardment.

The reporter didn't change her stance. She originally stated that she saw no overt signs of mass weapons stockpiles when the group visited the dump. SHe later admitted that there was no searching of the dump and that it was simply a "pit stop" on the way to Baghdad. It makes just as much common sense that the Iraqis simply secured their weaponry in deep bunkers since a secure ammo site is there for the purpose of surviving an enemy attack. As for the Iraqis moving the material months ahead of time apparentely you missed another one of Opus's links:

quote:

March 2003: Nuclear agency inspectors visited Al-Qaqaa for the last time but did not examine the explosives because the seals were not broken. The inspectors then pulled out of the country. http://www.nola.com/newsflash/iraq/...&storylist=iraq

The site was inspected a mere week before the invasion and the seals were intact. The issue is pretty much moot however, since it was clearly reported back in 2003 that troops did indeed find explosives when it occupied the camp:

quote:

Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, said troops found thousands of five-centimetre by 12-centimetre boxes, each containing three vials of white powder, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in chemical warfare. A senior U.S. official familiar with initial testing said the powder was believed to be explosives. The finding would be consistent with the plant's stated production capabilities in the field of basic raw materials for explosives and propellants. http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/n...readiness01.htm

quote:

Nope, you are throwing in conjection. There is a lot of reasons to remain quiet. Here is one: My own personal theory is that the Pentagon simply could not confirm or deny this report (much like Kerry) and simply chose to stay quiet until they got all their own internal facts straight.

Your entire argument is based on conjecture. Let's look at the facts:

The explosives were there a week before the invasion.

US troops did not properly search the facility when they stopped there.

US troops did find explosives at the dump.

The Iraqi government said that the explosives were stolen after Saddam was toppled due to poor security.

Nothing indicates that the explosives were moved prior to the invasion.

quote:

So everyone who has pleaded the fifth or said "no comment" is guilty? Why, what an interesting discovery and novel approach to justice! We can get rids of courts and all that lousy bureaucracy and lawywers tommorow! Occrider just discovered a novel way to find out if somebody is guilty of innocent - if he is guilt he will remain quiet, if he is innocent he will tell us so! Thanks

This isn't a court of justice. This is public relations. If the Pentagon had solid evidence that they were not culpable for this they would present it. Granted it's not sole evidence to support the claims of incompetance, but that along with every other account of events solidify into a rather credible account.

quote:

Occrider, come on - I can't believe you of all people have been swept up with this tide of political-motivated bias. Are you listening to what you are saying? You are sounding more like Opus (no offense there Opus, I'm a big fan of all your recent tin-hat accomplishments ). What, just a couple months ago I could of sworn you were arguing in one thread that just because somebody doesn't say something does not mean they are guilty.

I have politically chosen sides, however, this is hardly political "bias". On a scale, the majority of evidence simply weighs on one side so disproportionately. Therefore my convictions on this matter are simply based on the preponderance of the evidence ... same as it is in every other matter and why I hate conspiracy theories so.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Your entire argument is based on conjecture. Let's look at the facts: The explosives were there a week before the invasion. US troops did not properly search the facility when they stopped there. US troops did find explosives at the dump. The Iraqi government said that the explosives were stolen after Saddam was toppled due to poor security. Nothing indicates that the explosives were moved prior to the invasion.

Can you compare the ease of mobility of the these explosives with the mobility of actual WMDs?
And the whereabouts of the U.N.


You liberals need to make up your mind.

Did Saddam have weapons or not?

You are arguing that there NEVER WERE weapons and now want to argue that we let them be stolen.

How about picking a side and sticking to it... You are flip-flopping as much as your dishonorable candidate.

quote:

Copyright 2003 Valley Daily Bulletin Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Ontario, CA) April 4, 2003 Friday LENGTH: 813 words [SNIP] Troops encounter unknown chemical items As the military advances closer to Baghdad, signs of Iraqichemical preparedness are multiplying, although there is still no conclusive evidence Saddam Hussein's regime possesses weapons of mass destruction. On Friday, troops at a training facility in the westernIraqi desert came across a bottle labeled "tabun" a nerve gas and chemical weapon Iraq is banned from possessing. Closer to Baghdad, troops at Iraq's largest militaryindustrial complex found nerve agent antidotes, documents describing chemical warfare and a white powder that appeared to be used for explosives. U.N. weapons inspectors went repeatedly to the vast al QaQaa complex most recently on March 8 but found nothing during spot visits to some of the 1,100 buildings at the site 25 miles south of Baghdad. Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rdInfantry Division, said troops found thousands of 2-by-5-inch boxes, each containing three vials of white powder, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in chemical warfare.

Lexis-Nexis

and
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83252,00.html

Also something smells fishy with the Kerry camp and the liberal media, come to mind CBS and the New York Times

quote:

KERRY: That's why Senator Lugar says: incompetent in the delivery of services. That's why Senator Hagel, Republican, says, you know: beyond pitiful, beyond embarrassing, in the zone of dangerous. We didn't guard 850,000 tons of ammo. That ammo is now being used against our kids. Ten thousand out of 12,000 Humvees aren't armored. I visited some of those kids with no limbs today, because they didn't have the armor on those vehicles. They didn't have the right body armor. I've met parents who've on the Internet gotten the armor to send their kids. There is no bigger judgment for a president of the United states than how you take a nation to war. And you can't say, because Saddam might have done it 10 years from now, that's a reason; that's an excuse.

This was in the SECOND Debate, October 8th.

NBC reported on the 380 tons missing when we arrived on October 10th.

CBS/NYT spun/faked this news to imply the cache was there and just disappeared a few days ago (FALSE). This report was on October 25th.

CBS planned to run their story on October 31st to alter the election.


Why is Kerry claiming we lost 850,000 TONS of ammo? 850,000?????

Where did he get this information two days before any report of the missing explosives?
Kerry was talking about being attacked by missing ammo during the debates. His characterization mirrors the NYT/CBS propaganda piece too closely for my comfort. He must have known the story was going to run, and/or either slipped up. Info on this dump had not been packaged this way yet. Kerry WAS privy to the upcoming story.
Who thought NBC would have the integrity to blow the whistle on this refitted non-story? Not me.

Ridiculous shit to say the least

Last edited by speedracer_mec on Oct-27-2004 at 01:06

yall haters should notice this is no longer on the front page (or anywhere i saw) of the NYTimes. tells me a lot.

"The nuclear agency 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."

"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."

recognize that name?

this is such a farce. lets get the elections over with and all of this will come to an end.

fairly cool
http://www.drudgereport.com/nbcw6.htm

click on the NBC report taking Kerry apart.

the reportes are saying that there were no IAEA tags on anything they saw.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo yall haters should notice this is no longer on the front page (or anywhere i saw) of the NYTimes. tells me a lot. "The nuclear agency 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." "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." recognize that name? this is such a farce. lets get the elections over with and all of this will come to an end.

Funny you mention elbaradei because I was researching him earlier.Scumbag to say the least.

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_ID=5051

quote:

ElBaradei: "Iran has no nuclear weapons program" 10/3/2004 7:00:00 AM GMT International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed that Iran is not developing any nuclear weapons program and that the issue of Iran’s nuclear file must be resolved diplomatically to avoid going through a similar bitter experience like Iraq, Al Asharq al-Awsat reported on Saturday. “Iran has no nuclear weapons program, but I personally don’t rush to conclusions before all the realities are clarified. So far I see nothing which could be called an imminent danger. I have seen no nuclear weapons program in Iran. What I have seen is that Iran is trying to gain access to nuclear enrichment technology, and so far there is no danger from Iran. Therefore, we should make use of political and diplomatic means before thinking of resorting to other alternatives,” ElBaradei said. When asked about the IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program that is expected to be issued next month, ElBaradei told the daily, “We have actually started compiling the report and it will be ready at the specified time before the Board of Governors meeting. So far, nothing new has surfaced, and we still call on Iran to help resolve the outstanding issues. In order to resolve the problem we have asked them to suspend the enrichment of uranium as a confidence-building measure, and we are still negotiating.” ElBaradei noted that it was too early to consider referring Iran’s nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council. Worst-case scenario He, moreover, stated that referring Iran’s nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council for violating the provisions of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) would be the worst-case scenario. “We hope we will not have to adopt obligatory measures (about Iran) and also prefer not to make judgments about Iran withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” he told the paper. “Our findings in Iraq proved that the agency was right because we didn’t find anything which indicated the presence of nuclear weapons in Iraq. “If we want to take a lesson from Iraq, we should not rush before all realities are clarified, and this is what we want to do about Iran.” In September 18, the IAEA adopted a tough resolution demanding Iran to halt its all enrichment-related activities. The IAEA Board is set to meet again on November 25.

Further...the HMX and RDX are used to create explosive lenses...FOR
NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Given the date of this 'story'...and...the "sudden" revelation of
'missing weapons'...which ...why didn't MR. Elbaradei mention this as
well in this story eh???? He supposedly knew about those 'missing
weapons' at the time of this 'news story'....right?

Iran btw has already announced/admitted it has a nuclear weapon
program./but mr.elbaradei thinks otherwise IAEA definitely has an axe to grind with the Bush Adminstration.

Still think not?

quote:

Mohamed ElBaradei is seeking a third term at the helm of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, a move opposed by the Bush administration...... A senior Bush administration official said recently that Washington's chief reservation is the two-term limit, but indicated that officials had problems with some of Mr. ElBaradei's judgments in recent investigations. "We've made it clear to him that we support a two-term limit on agency heads," said the official. "We're trying to be gentlemanly about it."

IAEA-UN-FOOD for OIL Scandal

Interestin Tidbit:
Mr.ElBarMoron did not recieve the Nobel Prize he expected to win.

Nominated hehe
Ohoh This Guy Got it
Things getting personal?

Its a conspiracy!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And finally, I'm sure all of you remember the story about Zarqawi, and how our Administration botched/directly avoided killing him out right several times before the war: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/ The WSJournal also finally picked this one up too: http://online.wsj.com/article_email...IaKmGm4,00.html So let's just put 2 and 2 together here - we had the opportunity to nail Zarqawi but failed to do so. We had the opportunity to secure hundreds of tons of explosives but failed to do so. Now we see both the explosives AND Zarqawi all too closely as they are combined to murder our troops and innocent Iraqi civilians we are supposed to protect. Need I say anything further about this Administration and Iraq?

Opus, it wasn't smart for you to go here. From your own cited source...

"In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/


"But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn't take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq. Ultimately, the camp was hit just after the invasion of Iraq began."http://online.wsj.com/article_email...IaKmGm4,00.html




Look at the time frame here. Sept 11 already occured. This report was in summer 2002. We invaded in 2003!
Thanks Opus! this serves as a nice reminder/news to everyone in the whole world that there was indeed strong evidence that Saddam was tied to Al-Qaida terrorist groups after sept. 11. Are you going to now suggest that Saddam didn't even know these people were setting up a weapons lab in his own country?? He was harboring Al-Qaida. That is the reason we went into Afghanistan because they were harboring. This is one of the reasons we invaded Iraq. Again more support for my argument that we waited toooooooo long to attack and wasted time with the UN bull***.

You seem to be supporting my argument now that we should have attacked Iraq sooner! just like Kerry is unknowingly (because he's an idiot) suggesting. How funny! Because it's you libs who were blaming Bush for not getting UN approval and attacking too soon! and now you are all suggesting we screwed up because we didn't go in sooner! Bush's security council rejected military actions in Iraq against Zarqawi and A-Qaida because they were still trying to get multi-national support and UN approval. He was doing the gentlemanly and diplomatic thing until it was evident that the delay was favoring the enemy too much and so he acted. The Bush admins only mistake in this war is that they didn't choose to attack sooner and gave the enemy too much time to prepare. You guys are all hanging yourselves with your own rope and losing any credibility you might have had.

(Just off the record Opus, I think it's very repulsive of you to in a time of war to oppose the Bush admin just because you are so concerned about the political power imbalance here in USA. It's also repulsive that you appear to think of this war as very insignificant. I gathered this from reading another of your posts of which I didn't reply because I know where you are comming from and your mind is closed like a refrigerator. From what I've read from your post you have no clue to the seriousness of this war. If you were in the shoes of a US soldier your perspective would be much different. But you're probably just an old fart who thinks the war isn't going to affect him in any way. For all you know Opus this war could indeed affect you and even your own family and home in the near future. In a time of war we should be banding together supporting our pres. and less concerned about which party has the most power right now. We are a nation. Remember??! It's your kind of ignorance and selfishness that has caused this ugly split and the reason someone like this poor-choice of-a-candidate Kerry has even got the support he has.)

Lets get this stinking election over with so that Bush can get back to business. This f****** election has delayed and hindered military operations way too long now!

Sincerely,
Pissed Off

More Josh Marshall goodness:

quote:

Now, NBC's Jim Miklaszewski (an embedded reporter who was at Al QaQaa w/ 101st Airborne that day) the just went on MSNBC with this follow-up (emphasis added) ... 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.

Also, I find it highly unlikely that Saddam got those weapons out of there before the war. We would have followed any attempt of Saddam moving 380 Tons of explosives, thinking they were WMDs. That is just common sense, and if it happened and we weren't checking it out, it proves Kerry's point that this administration was incompetant when it went to war.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by davedresden oh my fucking god i die, dave

quote:

Originally posted by surferfb More Josh Marshall goodness: Also, I find it highly unlikely that Saddam got those weapons out of there before the war. We would have followed any attempt of Saddam moving 380 Tons of explosives, thinking they were WMDs. That is just common sense, and if it happened and we weren't checking it out, it proves Kerry's point that this administration was incompetant when it went to war.

Did you even bother to read anybody else's posts?

Pure assumption there buddy and no its not common sense because the Media is backpedaling.

*sigh*

Last edited by speedracer_mec on Oct-27-2004 at 05:03

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover Opus, it wasn't smart for you to go here. From your own cited source... "In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/ "But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn't take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq. Ultimately, the camp was hit just after the invasion of Iraq began."http://online.wsj.com/article_email...IaKmGm4,00.html Look at the time frame here. Sept 11 already occured. This report was in summer 2002. We invaded in 2003! Thanks Opus! this serves as a nice reminder/news to everyone in the whole world that there was indeed strong evidence that Saddam was tied to Al-Qaida terrorist groups after sept. 11. Are you going to now suggest that Saddam didn't even know these people were setting up a weapons lab in his own country?? He was harboring Al-Qaida. That is the reason we went into Afghanistan because they were harboring. This is one of the reasons we invaded Iraq. Again more support for my argument that we waited toooooooo long to attack and wasted time with the UN bull***. You seem to be supporting my argument now that we should have attacked Iraq sooner! just like Kerry is unknowingly (because he's an idiot) suggesting. How funny! Because it's you libs who were blaming Bush for not getting UN approval and attacking too soon! and now you are all suggesting we screwed up because we didn't go in sooner! Bush's security council rejected military actions in Iraq against Zarqawi and A-Qaida because they were still trying to get multi-national support and UN approval. He was doing the gentlemanly and diplomatic thing until it was evident that the delay was favoring the enemy too much and so he acted. The Bush admins only mistake in this war is that they didn't choose to attack sooner and gave the enemy too much time to prepare. You guys are all hanging yourselves with your own rope and losing any credibility you might have had. (Just off the record Opus, I think it's very repulsive of you to in a time of war to oppose the Bush admin just because you are so concerned about the political power imbalance here in USA. It's also repulsive that you appear to think of this war as very insignificant. I gathered this from reading another of your posts of which I didn't reply because I know where you are comming from and your mind is closed like a refrigerator. From what I've read from your post you have no clue to the seriousness of this war. If you were in the shoes of a US soldier your perspective would be much different. But you're probably just an old fart who thinks the war isn't going to affect him in any way. For all you know Opus this war could indeed affect you and even your own family and home in the near future. In a time of war we should be banding together supporting our pres. and less concerned about which party has the most power right now. We are a nation. Remember??! It's your kind of ignorance and selfishness that has caused this ugly split and the reason someone like this poor-choice of-a-candidate Kerry has even got the support he has.) Lets get this stinking election over with so that Bush can get back to business. This f****** election has delayed and hindered military operations way too long now! Sincerely, Pissed Off

MFWERD