CNN-Weapons were already missing - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-26-2004, 08:00 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 01:46 AM
Yes, the IAEA promotes peaceful use.

I still don´t get diamond´s point.

I tend to agree with cydewaze:

"This is the part that bothers me (from msnbc):

Quote:
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.

So, after the invasion, we found these things, but we didn't bother to post a guard around them? Inexcusable."
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 08:40 AM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:46 AM
The corner at NRO had this to say.


BOMB-GATE [Cliff May]
Sent to me by a source in the government: “The Iraqi explosives story is a fraud. These weapons were not there when US troops went to this site in 2003. The IAEA and its head, the anti-American Mohammed El Baradei, leaked a false letter on this issue to the media to embarrass the Bush administration. The US is trying to deny El Baradei a second term and we have been on his case for missing the Libyan nuclear weapons program and for weakness on the Iranian nuclear weapons program.”

(For the record, I don’t reveal my sources so if that means I end up sharing a cell at Sing-sing with Judy Miller, so be it.)
Posted at 10:00 AM
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 09:05 AM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:46 PM
what's really sad is the amount of arm-chair quaterbacking.
in the same vain-

by the time Curt Schilling wins it for the BoSox most of these folks from the left will be finding fault w/Mr Schilling's performance in one degree or another
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 09:07 AM   #19
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,149
Local Time: 06:46 PM
I hate the media... I wish there was something being done about fixing it IMO.
__________________
Flying FuManchu is online now  
Old 10-26-2004, 09:23 AM   #20
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 399
Local Time: 11:46 PM
do we really have the right to attack a country with $200 billion worth of resources because we think it might have started a weapons program sometime in the future? and even if the intelligence of the world community was flawed ... shouldn't we wait until we have some hard proof, maybe a satellite picture of weapons movements or something substantial, before we completely obliterate an entire country? just seems like common sense points to me.
__________________
Anirban is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 09:37 AM   #21
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 340
Local Time: 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The corner at NRO had this to say.


BOMB-GATE [Cliff May]
Sent to me by a source in the government: “The Iraqi explosives story is a fraud. These weapons were not there when US troops went to this site in 2003. The IAEA and its head, the anti-American Mohammed El Baradei, leaked a false letter on this issue to the media to embarrass the Bush administration. The US is trying to deny El Baradei a second term and we have been on his case for missing the Libyan nuclear weapons program and for weakness on the Iranian nuclear weapons program.”

(For the record, I don’t reveal my sources so if that means I end up sharing a cell at Sing-sing with Judy Miller, so be it.)
Posted at 10:00 AM
This is ridiculous on its face. It's just a "government official" - could be anyone with that phrasing - giving his own theory. He can't possibly be in a situation to know what El Baradei's motivations may or may not be, short of mind-reading.

If we're relying on anonymous officials, there's also this story, which notes a "Pentagon official" saying that we inspected the site after the war and the stuff was still there. It's still anonymous, and therefore unreliable, but at least 1) it doesn't rely on the word of people with an obvious self-interest in saying otherwise, and 2) there's no mind-reading required.

Besides, it may be moot anyway; the first troops to visit the site did find explosives, although it's unclear what kind of explosives.
__________________
strannix is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 09:46 AM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by strannix
This is ridiculous on its face. It's just a "government official" - could be anyone with that phrasing - giving his own theory. He can't possibly be in a situation to know what El Baradei's motivations may or may not be, short of mind-reading.

If we're relying on anonymous officials, there's also this story, which notes a "Pentagon official" saying that we inspected the site after the war and the stuff was still there. It's still anonymous, and therefore unreliable, but at least 1) it doesn't rely on the word of people with an obvious self-interest in saying otherwise, and 2) there's no mind-reading required.
Please realize that an unnamed "Pentagon official" is just as unreliable as the "government official". Reporter can simply quote each other to get a quote and we will never be the wiser.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 12:24 PM   #23
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 340
Local Time: 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Please realize that an unnamed "Pentagon official" is just as unreliable as the "government official". Reporter can simply quote each other to get a quote and we will never be the wiser.
As you notice I called the Pentagon official "unreliable". I'd dispute that they're equally unreliable, though, for the reasons I put forth.

It's true that we'll never be the wiser, and as you'll notice by my acknowledgment of the unreliability of the Pentagon official, I don't put too much stock in either quote. But as a general rule, assertions made based on facts are always more credible than those based on speculation, and assertions made out of self-interest are always less credible than those that are not.
__________________
strannix is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 01:33 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by strannix
But as a general rule, assertions made based on facts are always more credible than those based on speculation, and assertions made out of self-interest are always less credible than those that are not.
Agreed.

And these days, where can you find someone not acting out of self-interest?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 01:46 PM   #25
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 340
Local Time: 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Agreed.

And these days, where can you find someone not acting out of self-interest?
Well, it seems there's one working at the Pentagon ....
__________________
strannix is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 02:56 PM   #26
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 06:46 PM
Say what you want about the media but I trust the eye-witness account from an embed reporter more than an unnamed official.

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. 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. 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 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.

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. bOnce we left the area, that was the last that the brigade had anything to do with the area.

video link
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 03:31 PM   #27
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 11:46 PM
Kerry has made an new attack ad featuring the NY Times weapons story.
http://www.johnkerry.com/video/102604_obligation.html

I guess it doesn't matter to him that the story has already been proven to be wrong. I guess if you say a lie enough times people will start to beLIEve.
__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 05:04 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxFisher

I guess it doesn't matter to him that the story has already been proven to be wrong.
Are you paying attention?

Maybe you have had surgery and are on some heavy meds.

Quote:
Al-Qaqaa spokesman says no weapons search

By KIMBERLY HEFLING
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

EVANSVILLE, Ind. -- The first U.S. military unit to reach the Al-Qaqaa military installation after the invasion of Iraq did not have orders to search for the nearly 400 tons of explosives that Iraqi officials say were stolen from the site sometime following the fall of Baghdad, the unit spokesman said Tuesday.

When the troops from the 101st Airborne Division's 2nd Brigade arrived at the Al-Qaqaa base a day or so after Baghdad's fall on April 9, 2003, there were already looters throughout the facility, 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 message. "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.

His remarks appeared to confirm the observations of an NBC reporter embedded with the army unit who said Tuesday that she saw no signs that the Americans searched for the powerful explosives during their 24 hours at the facility en route to Baghdad, 30 miles to the north.

The disappearance, which the International Atomic Energy Agency reported Monday to the U.N. Security Council, has raised questions about why the United States didn't do more to secure the facility and failed to allow full international inspections to resume after the March 2003 invasion.

On Tuesday, Russia, citing the disappearance, 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 is no need for U.N. experts to return.

The missing explosives have become a major issue in the final week of the presidential campaign, with Vice President Dick Cheney questioning on Tuesday whether the explosives were at the facility when U.S. troops arrived, and the Kerry campaign calling the disappearance the latest in a "tragic series of blunders" by the Bush administration.

The Al-Qaqaa explosives included HMX and RDX, key components in plastic explosives, which insurgents in Iraq have used in repeated bomb attacks on U.S.-led multinational forces and Iraqi police and national guardsmen. But HMX is also a "dual use" substance powerful enough to ignite the fissile material in an atomic bomb and set off a nuclear chain reaction.

Bush won't take any questions on this or even address it.

Why? If there is nothing to hide?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 05:18 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Bush won't take any questions on this or even address it.

Why? If there is nothing to hide?
I'll skip the personal attack on MaxFisher.

Given the flurry of news articles and editorial comments, there is no clear picture of when the explosives disappeared.

The last time they were seen was 2000-2001?

The last time the IAEA visited the site, they only inspected the seal.

There is a statement from the IAEA that the explosives disappeared as early as January 2003.

With all the hyperbole and rhetoric, and knowing that certain groups would not be happy with any answer given, I am not surprised GWB hasn't answered questions on this.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 05:31 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,410
Local Time: 06:46 PM
Even you wily conservatives can't manage to talk away the disappearance of hundreds of tonnes of weapons due to gross incompetence... ahh it's a good day.
__________________

__________________
DaveC is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com