and to make matters even worse those sorry bas Bush apologists were guilty of destroying the evidence!...for shame!!!!
I'm not calling the troops anything. I will leave that up to W supporters to do since they are the first to jump to name calling when they are out of real facts to support their thesis.Version? , it's reality. Or are you calling our troops liars now? Guess it fits the party huh?
The truth is, everytime a real fact comes up and destroys the administrations version of what happened at Al Qa Qaa, they come up with a new version of the 'truth' to muddy up the waters a little.
It must suck for you to be wrong all the time Dan!
I have rarely been wrong. Thank you for your concern though.
Here is what Joshua Marshall of Talking Points Memo who has been on top of this controversy has to say about the latest administration spin...
At a few minutes after noon, I'm watching Mr. Di Rita giving yet another round of spin about al Qaqaa. Uncharacteristically, he looked like he was on the verge of a panic attack through most of his introductory remarks. And with what followed, it's not hard to see why. The line Di Rita led off with (and I just jotted this down from hearing it once over the air, so perhaps I've got a word or two wrong) was this: "It has not been our desire to tell a particular story, only to tell the facts."
Please.
I believe this man protests too much.
The only thing accurate about this claim is that it's true that Di Rita has not been intent on telling a particular story. He's been willing to tell any story -- and has -- so long as it's a story that exonerates the White House. Even if it's a different story every day.
It's a touchy point. But it's time for someone to start making the point that the Pentagon Public Affairs office isn't supposed to be used as a formal arm of the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign. And for that matter if Di Rita's going to use it that way, he should at least be doing a better job of it.
Today Di Rita brought out an Army major who says his unit removed and destroyed roughly 250 tons of equipment, ammunition and explosives from somewhere in the al Qaqaa facility in early April 2003 -- that would be after the first US troops arrived but prior to the arrival of the news crew that apparently filmed much of the explosives on April 18th.
Was it the stuff in question? Di Rita kept trying to answer the questions on the major's behalf. But the major made clear that he had no idea. Did he see any IAEA seals? No, he said, he didn't.
The Fox reporter at the news conference tried to coax the major into saying more than he was saying. But to no avail. He would only say what he knew. And there was very little that he knew that pertained to the relevant question.
The other reporters on hand, apparently weary of being lied to all week, preferred to put their questions to the major directly, rather than to Di Rita. And he, the major, was straightforward enough to say that all he knew was that he had taken stuff from somewhere at al Qaqaa and destroyed.
What does that mean? Almost nothing.
This was an unfortunate stunt, put on by Di Rita and the politicals at DOD Public Affairs. And given how it turned out, I suspect it's one they quickly regretted.
-- Josh Marshall
"I have rarely been wrong." ..........................
Then prove me wrong and quit making stupid comments like this."I have rarely been wrong."
So there were indeed stockpiles of dangerous weapons in Iraq which cons uted a "grave threat" to the US and the US military has destroyed most of them, save for a rounding error which even the IAEA cannot definitively ascertain were there at the time of the invasion.
I didn't realize that danny boy was for the invasion. Go figure.
Quote:
"I have rarely been wrong."
You're the one who made the stupid comment!
Nice spin, but these were not munitions that Saddam had not declared. Big difference. If Saddam had been hiding the weapons from the IAEA, or U.N. weapons inspectors you might have a point, but we know that wasn't the case dont we?So there were indeed stockpiles of dangerous weapons in Iraq and the US has destroyed most of them, save for a rounding error which even the IAEA cannot definitively ascertain were there at the time of the invasion.
"destroying the evidence" is not even close to the topic.
The CIA/military inability to state definitively what is the disposition of the exlosives is the key issue. If they destroyed it, say so (they didn't).
If somebody (saddam, russians, whoever) moved it, say so.
If somebody moved 360 tons of explosives, why didn't the military, with all its expensive gadgets trained on Iraq, know it was being moved? The military bombed A-A sites just for turning on their radars, why can't/didn't the miliatary MOAB, or whatever, Al QaQaa at the first sign of displacement?
All they said today is more of "we know this and this, but we don't know that". Fine, thanks for at least that.
But, for this particularly important and known-for-a-decade stash, why don't they know?
shrub's "I'm waiting for the facts" isn't valid, just as his lie "we need more study" on global warming. Why TF didn't shrub already have the facts about thees WMD-able explosives in Dec02/Apr 03? I say because he didn't give a flying about WMD, he was going to war no matter what. WMD, and his 30 others bogus justifications, were just a con job.
Doesn't ing matter. He had them prior to the invasion. According to some of the you've posted that is a fact.Nice spin, but these were not munitions that Saddam had not declared.
Big difference.
Oh I have a point and you have no response. He had those stockpiles of weapons. The monitoring doesn't mean a ing thing. The IAEA doesn't know what he had at the time of the invasion and they have admitted that there were other access points to those buildings which were not covered by any of their "seals."If Saddam had been hiding the weapons from the IAEA, or U.N. weapons inspectors you might have a point, but we know that wasn't the case dont we?
What was the deterrent that the IAEA and the UN had to prevent him from disregarding them?
Try again.
Lest we forget that Hussein was not supposed to have had that arsenal of explosives in the first place.
What the are you smoking? Have you seen the video of those bunkers? If any other entrance to those bunkers had been attempted it would have been more than obvious. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest.Oh I have a point and you have no response. He had those stockpiles of weapons. The monitoring doesn't mean a ing thing. The IAEA doesn't know what he had at the time of the invasion and they have admitted that there were other access points to those building which were not covered by any of their "seals."
What was the deterrent that the IAEA and the UN had to prevent him from disregarding them?
Try again
We do know from the IAEA report that there were hundreds of tons of deadly HMX explosives at the site when the U.S. expelled IAEA inspectors in March prior to the invasion.
No true. These explosives had been declared by Saddam as for civilian use and judging from their non-use in GW2, I would say Saddam lived up to his pledge.Lest we forget that Hussein was not supposed to have had that arsenal of explosives in the first place
Of course, it's a non-issue for you that these munitions were banned under conditions of the original ceasefire in '92, part of the conditions of which stipulated if Saddam didn't comply we could recommence Operation Ass Kicking.Nice spin, but these were not munitions that Saddam had not declared.
The video doesn't show it all you little psycho nutjob. There were large vents on the sides of the building through which those explosives could have been moved without breaking the seal. The IAEA said he had done that before.What the are you smoking? Have you seen the video of those bunkers? If any other entrance to those bunkers had been attempted it would have been more than obvious.
Even if the seal was broken, then what? Was the IAEA going to send Saddam a nasty letter? Take away his allowance?
You don't know the first thing about intellectual honesty.To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
All the IAEA looked at was the seals on the buildings housing the HMX. They did not look inside. They also did not examine the facilities housing the RDX at all.We do know from the IAEA report that there were hundreds of tons of deadly HMX explosives at the site when the U.S. expelled IAEA inspectors in March prior to the invasion.
But, again, assuming you are correct for this brief second, you again confirm that Hussein had serious weapons which posed a grave threat to the United States.
Good work, junior.
He was not supposed to have had them per a number of UN resolutions. The UN acquiesed when he came up with that bull story about the 'civilian use.'No true. These explosives had been declared by Saddam as for civilian use and judging from their non-use in GW2, I would say Saddam lived up to his pledge.
Nice to see that you are now arguing for Saddam. For we know you'd rather sell out your country than admit anything good about a Republican president.
...but they weren't, and there is no evidence that Saddam used these explosives.you little psycho nutjob. There were large vents on the sides of the building through which those explosives could have been moved without breaking the seal. The IAEA said he had done that before.
Even if the seal was broken, then what? Was the IAEA going to send Saddam a nasty letter.
Nice to see that you are now arguing for Saddam. For we know you'd rather sell out your country than admit anything good about a Republican president.
Well, at least you've progressed beyond the name calling, now I'm just a Saddam supporter.
The seals don't matter as he could have removed the explosives without breaking them....but they weren't, and there is no evidence that Saddam used these explosives.
Secondly, the IAEA, again, did not verifiy that the explosives were there in the first place in March.
, if he broke the seals what would have been the punishment?
Get some ing perspective. My dog could make a better argument than you.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 10-29-2004 at 01:58 PM.
Um you just claimed that Saddam was living up to his obligations and about 15 UN resolutions say he wasn't. He wasn't supposed to have had those weapons in the first place, civilian use or not.Well, at least you've progressed beyond the name calling, now I'm just a Saddam supporter.
one thing too...officers don't do the real "work"...they are like managers... the major probably didn't even open the doors, so he himself did not see the seals...
also, the IAEA states the shafts of the bunkers were not sealed and things could be easily removed...
here is a link to the pdf report by the IAEA:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/..._do ents.pdf
also, i think it is highly unlikely the anyone could've secretly moved 370 tons of ANYTHING!!!
Actually, before the war we didn't own that skies above Al-qaqaa.. Al Qa Qaa is located in Yousefiya 30-38 km South of Baghdad, near Iskandariya. It is not located in the areas of the no-fly zones..
also, the u.s. military comes across many weapons they destroy...they have destroyed over 600,000 tons of weapons...do you honestly beleive our soldiers have the time to be listing every single det cord, grenade, plastic explosive they destroy??? their job is to destroy it so that it can't be used against them.
"So there were indeed stockpiles of dangerous weapons in Iraq which cons uted a "grave threat" to the US"
False. Iraq was no threat to anybody, even Iran, after 10+ years of sanctions, inspectors crawling around, no-fly zones, under nearby continuous US surveillance. The Iraq "problem" was solved long ago.
shrub has now de-stablized a stable, impotent Iraq, created a totally new problem entirely of his own making.
One would assume that the US military would have been watching 360 tons of high explosives like a hawk, but it looks like they were asleep at the wheel ....
Ok, so if Hussein had no weapons which were a threat to the US then there's no issue here.
Also, you are assuming that the sanctions scheme was sustainable and that clearly was not the case. You clearly are unaware of that so I'm not going to waste anymore time on you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
