|
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
it's called selective reasoning. |
Oh the irony! 
| quote: | | you think photographs from one of the many, many bunkers represents the entire 370 tons |
It doesn't have to represent the entire 370 tons. What it demonstrates, beyond dount, is that large quantities of the explosives were still in the bunkers during the American occupatation and that they were looted - and could well now be in the hands of terrorists - when they should have been protected.
Besides, the fact that the Americans don't have a clue how much material was in there after the end of the campaign demostrates - whichever way you look at it - a gross failure of duty. The US knew exactly how significant the site was (even if their intelligence agencies didn't know - which they would have - the IAEA listed at as one of their top-priority sites) and the US failed to protect it. Hell, they even failed to open the door and see if the stuff was still in there apparently. So what Bush wants you to accept is that the possibility that some of the material had left the site prior to the conflict somehow renders void the gross negligence involved in failing to secure a site containing weapons that - in the wrong hands - could be used to devastating effect against the US. I mean, wasn't that what we went to war to prevent? Do you feel safe knowing that 370 tons of explosives are circulating somewhere in the Middle-East and that your president doesn't have a fucking clue where they are?
| quote: | | i just listened to David Kay, just now on News Night with Aaron Brown, look at those same photographs and say "yes, looks like HDX, but that was just one bunker and what i just saw was maybe 1 ton." (paraphrasing) |
Bullshit. Here's the transcript. Show me where Kay offers any indication that there was anything less than large quantities of weapons still remaining in the bunker:
| quote: | Aaron Brown: We saw at the top of the program there is new information to factor in. Pretty conclusive to our eye. So we'll sort through this now. Take the politics out of it and try and deal with facts with former head UN weapons inspector, US weapons inspector, David Kay. David, it’s nice to see you.
David Kay: Good to be with you, Aaron.
AB: I don't know how better to do this than to show you some pictures have you explain to me what they are or are not. Okay? First what I’ll just call the seal. And tell me if this is an IAEA seal on that bunker at that munitions dump?
DK: Aaron, about as certain as I can be looking at a picture, not physically holding it which, obviously, I would have preferred to have been there, that is an IAEA seal. I've never seen anything else in Iraq in about 15 years of being in Iraq and around Iraq that was other than an IAEA seal of that shape.
AB: Was there anything else at the facility that would have been under IAEA seal?
DK: Absolutely nothing. It was the HMX, RDX, the two high explosives.
AB: OK now, I’ll take a look at barrels here for a second. You can tell me what they tell you. They, obviously, to us just show us a bunch of barrels. You'll see it somewhat differently.
DK: Well, it's interesting. There were three foreign suppliers to Iraq of this explosive in the 1980s. One of them used barrels like this, and inside the barrels a bag. HMX is in powder form because you actually use it to shape a spherical lens that is used to create the triggering device for nuclear weapons. And particularly on the videotape, which is actually better than the still photos, as the soldier dips into it, that's either HMX or RDX. I don't know of anything else in al Qaqaa that was in that form.
AB: Let me ask you then, David, the question I asked Jamie. In regard to the dispute about whether that stuff was there when the Americans arrived, is it game, set, match? Is that part of the argument now over?
DK: Well, at least with regard to this one bunker, and the film shows one seal, one bunker, one group of soldiers going through, and there were others there that were sealed. With this one, I think it is game, set, and match. There was HMX, RDX in there. The seal was broken. And quite frankly, to me the most frightening thing is not only was the seal broken, lock broken, but the soldiers left after opening it up. I mean, to rephrase the so-called pottery barn rule. If you open an arms bunker, you own it. You have to provide security.
AB: I'm -- that raises a number of questions. Let me throw out one. It suggests that maybe they just didn't know what they had?
DK: I think you're quite likely they didn't know they had HMX, which speaks to lack of intelligence given troops moving through that area, but they certainly knew they had explosives. And to put this in context, I think it's important, this loss of 360 tons, but Iraq is awash with tens of thousands of tons of explosives right now in the hands of insurgents because we did not provide the security when we took over the country.
AB: Could you -- I’m trying to stay out of the realm of politics. I'm not sure you can.
DK: So am I.
AB: I know. It's a little tricky here. But, is there any -- is there any reason not to have anticipated the fact that there would be bunkers like this, explosives like this, and a need to secure them?
DK: Absolutely not. For example, al Qaqaa was a site of Gerald Bull's super gun project. It was a team of mine that discovered the HMX originally in 1991. That was one of the most well-documented explosive sites in all of Iraq. The other 80 or so major ammunition storage points were also well documented. Iraq had, and it's a frightening number, two-thirds of the total conventional explosives that the US has in its entire inventory. The country was an armed camp.
AB: David, as quickly as you can, because this just came up in the last hour, as dangerous as this stuff is, this would not be described as a WMD, correct?
DK: Oh absolutely not.
AB: Thank you.
DK: And, in fact, the loss of it is not a proliferation issue.
AB: Okay. It's just dangerous and its out there and by your thinking it should have been secured.
DK: Well look, it was used to bring the Pan Am flight down. It's a very dangerous explosive, particularly in the hands of terrorists.
AB: David, thank you for walking me through this. I appreciate it, David Kay the former head US weapons inspector in Iraq. |
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI.../28/asb.01.html
There was at least one bunker full of munitions, then, that wasn't sealed, plus several bunkers that were still sealed (meaning that they must have been looted after April). There is no way you can get around this: there were still lots of weapons at that site and the US failed to secure them even though it was aware of the significance of the site. You can make up as many numbers as you want or try to cast doubt on their significance, but the facts are clear: large quantities of very dangerous explosives were stolen from here. I don't care how badly brainwashed you are: you cannot skirt around these truths.
| quote: | | now your doubting a Hi-Res D.O.D. satellite image. |
Let me see, on the one hand we have a video demonstrating beyond all doubt that munitions were still at the site in April. On the other hand, we have a picture of some trucks parked by the side of the road. I don't doubt that those are trucks, I just doubt that we can make any inferences from them. Besides, you know what the Pentagon is like identifying trucks on sattelite imagery. Didn't they hand Colin Powell some similar pictures to show the UN as proof that Iraq still had active WMD programs about a month before the above photo was taken?
I just really don't understand you Bush supporters sometimes. You genuinely seem to have absolutely no grasp on reality whatsoever. Regardless of what evidence there is condemning your president, you see absolutely no harm in lying for him, or in unquestioningly accepting any conjectured evidence that may somehow serve absolve him. Instead of calling for greater presidential accountability, you start blaming the Russians and the Syrians without even a shred of evidence supporting these claims. You accept the notion that your president is beyond reproach, accept any old bullshit that helps you foster this belief and you do so with absolutely nothing but blind faith to go on? What the fuck is wrong with you people?
EDIT: - Beaten on the transcript.
___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/
|
