MSNBC reported that the WH is going to launch an investigation of this and kerry and president clinton are on the attack with regard to this issue. i think it plays well and they should stick to this theme despite the ambiguity in the facts. i've learned far too much about many voters and that is that they are easily swayed and easily convinced on things even when facts don't jive with what they've come to believe. attack, attack, attack! and, stretch the truth while you're at it. that's what wins.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
In an election week rush:<br><br>**ABCNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 4 Times<br>**CBSNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 7 Times<br>**MSNBC Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 37 Times<br>**CNN Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 50 Times<br><br>But tonight, NBCNEWS reported, once: The 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives were already missing back in April 10, 2003 -- when U.S. troops arrived at the installation south of Baghdad! <br><br>An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq. <br><br>According to NBCNEWS, the HMX and RDX explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
_________________________ got to let your eyes adjust
As usual, the truth on this might be slippery.<br><br>Here's an AP article that says they had searched it in March of 2003 and the weapons were still intact.<br><br>"At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said US-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. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity."<br><br><br>Also, some good analysis by journalist Josh Marshall:<br><br>"If the Di Rita hypothesis rests on the claim that the first US troops that visited al Qa Qaa found that the explosives had already been stolen or looted or otherwise secreted away. (He has, in fact, already said this.) And that would mean that the US government has known the explosives were missing for some eighteen months.<br><br>The problem is that the White House has spent the entire day claiming that they knew nothing about this until ten days ago, October 15th. Scott McClellan said this repeatedly during his gaggle with reporters this morning. Indeed, he went on to say the following: "Now [i.e., after the notification on October 15th], the Pentagon, upon learning of this, directed the multinational forces and the Iraqi survey group to look into this matter, and that's what they are currently doing."<br><br>So McClellan says that the Pentagon only just learned about this. And that's why they only now assigned the Iraq Survey Group to examine what happened at al Qa Qaa.<br><br>But Di Rita says that the US government has known about it for 18 months.<br><br>So which is it?<br><br>They've known about it since just after the war and kept it a secret? Or they just found out about it ten days ago and now they're on the case?"<br><br>So, either way you look at it, there is something rotten about this in the White House.<br><br>
But troops FIRST INSPECTED Al Qaqaa in MARCH 2003<br><br><br>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933 /<br><br>"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. "<br><br>Also, from the NYT<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Question: How did the US government know the explosives were missing, and yet not know?<br><br>Simple, just like all government agencies - they're kept in the dark over what the other agencies are doing. Someone knew, but didn't feel it important enough to pass onto another agency? In other words, the usual bureaucratic BS.<br><br>And didn't someone else claim that the inspectors didn't check inside the bunkers - since there was an intact seal on the doors? So I'd like to know if those claiming that the explosives were there at such and such date, actually opened the door and looked inside, or just read it off the manifest and looked at the tags and just assumed. It's all a question of Schrodinger's Cat!!<br><br>
_________________________ I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Looks to me like March inspection showed they were there.<br>April Inspection by IAEA says they are gone.<br><br><br>Rumsfeld said in response to the looting in Baghdad at this time, "Stuff happens".<br><br>
Hmmm, non-anonymous NBC reporter embedded with US troops when they FIRST arrive at the actual site (one day after the fall of Bagdad) reporting openly that the explosives were not there vs. anonymous Pentagon source.<br>Of course, it still would be nice to know where they went. Thus the investigation. Of course all this has to be done while securing and destroying the other 400,000 tons of explosives currently known about.<br>But I agree the White House response needs to be looked at. But once it's pointed out that the response was not a lie just simply nuanced I'm sure everyone will excuse any inconstancies. <br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Yes, I agree, it looks like a he said - she said. You'll notice that before I posted the link to that article I mentioned the possibility that Saddam moved them immediately before or during the war. I still think that it makes another good case against the whole invasion in the first place, though (as if we need more reasons). The confusion of the invasion allowed a lot of low-profile looting that probably would not have happened with the constant presence of weapons inspectors.<br><br>
"... were lost after April 9, 2003" is the money quote.<br><br>Who is going to call the IAEA liars now? <br><br>Is that 17 months since they notified the DOD? Condi said she just heard about this a month ago. Yet she still had time to campaign for Bush last week (yes, the National Security Advisor made a pass through swing states to stump for her boss two weeks after learning about the missing stockpile.)<br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.