Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
No one is telling you what to think RM9.RunningMn9 wrote:Why aren't triggercut and Meghan in here to address these turns of events?
How will I know what Josh Marshall is telling me to think about all of this?
That's just my way of needling trig to get him to come back here after his previous condascending rebuttal seems to be thoroughly shut down.Enough wrote:No one is telling you what to think RM9.
RunningMn9 wrote:That's just my way of needling trig to get him to come back here after his previous condescending rebuttal seems to be thoroughly shut down.Enough wrote:No one is telling you what to think RM9.
And maybe I missed something - but the only thing that I heard out of the WH was that the materials weren't verified by the 101st Airborne, and that Kerry is talking out of his ass without all the facts.
The 3ID story was offered (in this thread anyway), by the anti-WH forces. Until the commander of the 3ID said that they never searched for the crap.
I'm particularly concerned that the IAEA "seals" don't actually seal anything. WTF is the point then?
Well we know now that they didn't do a thorough search.What is relevant is that 3ID was there and did conduct a thorough search of the complex.
I'll agree with a good writer, but now he's been mistaken about 3 'major' stories in the last 6 months. I can't accept pretty decent investigative one.Enough wrote:
Although Josh is one hell of a writer and a pretty decent investigative one at that. But don't worry you still get to make up your own mind.
Which 3?noxiousdog wrote:I'll agree with a good writer, but now he's been mistaken about 3 'major' stories in the last 6 months. I can't accept pretty decent investigative one.Enough wrote:
Although Josh is one hell of a writer and a pretty decent investigative one at that. But don't worry you still get to make up your own mind.
So Trig, do you read my posts at all?triggercut wrote: Atrios, meanwhile, has this story from a news crew at Qaqaa with the 3ID. Apparently they went around cutting the bolts and locks on a bunch of bunkers that contained "unidentified" material marked as explosive as well as detonation cord....
...and then moving out.
And with what we know about 3ID now, I'm sure you'll be heaping scorn on Captain's Quaters and retract your previous post too right?triggercut wrote:Which 3?noxiousdog wrote:I'll agree with a good writer, but now he's been mistaken about 3 'major' stories in the last 6 months. I can't accept pretty decent investigative one.Enough wrote:
Although Josh is one hell of a writer and a pretty decent investigative one at that. But don't worry you still get to make up your own mind.
So, enough, do you realize that I'm typing from a blackberry right now, and that takes some fucking time?Enough wrote:So Trig, do you read my posts at all?triggercut wrote: Atrios, meanwhile, has this story from a news crew at Qaqaa with the 3ID. Apparently they went around cutting the bolts and locks on a bunch of bunkers that contained "unidentified" material marked as explosive as well as detonation cord....
...and then moving out.
Duh. Of course the story keeps changing. That's what happens when irresponsible reporters get a hold of a story that may or may not be true, but it's significant enough that a man running for president uses it to attack the other. It was frontpage news even. What do you expect the White House to do? Pretend like the story doesn't exist? By the time the facts are out, the election could be over.Enough wrote:
Yeah, this story does keep changing, eh?
Yes and no. Yes, the 3ID did search the complex as they found the thousands of white power vials. No, they didn't do a thorough search to definitively rule on the existence/nonexistence of HDX/RDX. The irony to this, of course, is that the anti-Bush argument is that the 3ID FOUND the HDX/RDX but by the time the 101st showed up they were gone.Now this 3ID searched it theory you posted yesterday is dead in the water.
it was "very highly improbable" that enemy forces could have trucked out such a huge amount of explosives in the weeks after U.S. forces first arrived there, considering the high level of U.S. military presence and how clogged the roads around the site were with U.S. convoys.
How, exactly, if the explosives were gone before March 31 (which appears to be the more likely explanation), does this affect the looting after March 31?And we already knew that the 101st, who arrived at the facility after 3ID, also didn't do any searches. And of course now we have the ABC article that the amount of explosives there could have been considerably less. Which if true would be a relief, but this story still brings up the old issue of us not doing a good job protecting critical sites from looters following the downfall of Saddam (see the article in today's NYTs).
Be honest. Admit you'll accept nearly all anti-Bush stories until they can be proved false. IIRC you stuck to the Dan Rather story long after anyone else besides Unbreakable.The one thing I will note is it seems the spin is out of control on this story. The Bush administration keeps running with whatever story and when it dies like the original NBC one they shift on to the next. Pretty curious behavior regardless of what happened. It's also odd that the military keeps contradicting the latest WH story. And given how the story continues to change day by day I am not convinced yet that the ABC report is even correct. We shall see.
Probably because if you were going to move military explosives you'd do it when there wasn't satellite coverage (satellites are easy to spot if you don't have light pollution)? Or maybe you'd park the truck in a garage when you load it?triggercut wrote: Curiously enough, if the stuff was removed by Saddam before the invasion, such a large-scale operation *should* be on satellite recon photos. Where are those photos? They'd sure exonerate the President, wouldn't they?
There's a reason we're not seeing those photos, I'd suspect.
Wow, I'll try to not take that one personally. But misrepresenting me and linking me with Unbreakable/tony72 in one single post is pretty fucking low dude. I didn't stick with the Rather story, rather I kept an open mind that is was constantly changing and didn't immediately jump to the conclusion it was false like you did. I typically watch a major story such as that develop over the course of at least a week before I make my mind up about it. And I sure as hell don't blindly accept any story whether it's anti-Bush or not.noxiousdog wrote: Be honest. Admit you'll accept nearly all anti-Bush stories until they can be proved false. IIRC you stuck to the Dan Rather story long after anyone else besides Unbreakable.
No I didn't, but it's not the first time you have re-posted stuff I already have.triggercut wrote:So, enough, do you realize that I'm typing from a blackberry right now, and that takes some fucking time?Enough wrote:So Trig, do you read my posts at all?triggercut wrote: Atrios, meanwhile, has this story from a news crew at Qaqaa with the 3ID. Apparently they went around cutting the bolts and locks on a bunch of bunkers that contained "unidentified" material marked as explosive as well as detonation cord....
...and then moving out.
But we're talking about at least 197 tons of explosives - it's not like you just back in a Rider truck and fill it.noxiousdog wrote:
Probably because if you were going to move military explosives you'd do it when there wasn't satellite coverage (satellites are easy to spot if you don't have light pollution)? Or maybe you'd park the truck in a garage when you load it?
This may be match. Well, when it was 380 tons of explosives, it was conjectured that it would take 40 trucks.Exodor wrote:But we're talking about at least 197 tons of explosives - it's not like you just back in a Rider truck and fill it.noxiousdog wrote:
Probably because if you were going to move military explosives you'd do it when there wasn't satellite coverage (satellites are easy to spot if you don't have light pollution)? Or maybe you'd park the truck in a garage when you load it?
If our intelligence abilties are so bad that they missed an entire convoy of trucks leaving a known weapons site, then we're in even more danger than I thought.
It's not personal at all. It's just an observation.Enough wrote:Wow, I'll try to not take that one personally. But misrepresenting me and linking me with Unbreakable/tony72 in one single post is pretty fucking low dude. I didn't stick with the Rather story, rather I kept an open mind that is was constantly changing and didn't immediately jump to the conclusion it was false like you did.noxiousdog wrote: Be honest. Admit you'll accept nearly all anti-Bush stories until they can be proved false. IIRC you stuck to the Dan Rather story long after anyone else besides Unbreakable.
Edit: gah, bbcode invasion.
After further review, I see you are correct. You have been very even handed (though I do find the issue with WH response kind of odd). My apologies.I typically watch a major story such as that develop over the course of at least a week before I make my mind up about it. And I sure as hell don't blindly accept any story whether it's anti-Bush or not.
Now wait a second. Are you realizing what you are saying here.Exodor wrote:If our intelligence abilties are so bad that they missed an entire convoy of trucks leaving a known weapons site, then we're in even more danger than I thought.
They are missing. But it seems that no one can really establish when they went missing. Which is sort of important with the election next week.Mr. Sparkle wrote:Are the explosives missing or not?
Ignorant about what? What explanation?noun wrote:As Jon Stewart said last night, "so the problem isn't that we were incompetent, it's that we were ignorant."
Really, the explanation doesn't make anyone look very intelligent, does it?
"OMGZ! 380 tons of explosives missing, WTF!"noxiousdog wrote:Ignorant about what? What explanation?noun wrote:As Jon Stewart said last night, "so the problem isn't that we were incompetent, it's that we were ignorant."
Really, the explanation doesn't make anyone look very intelligent, does it?
I have no idea what you mean by 2 and 4.noun wrote:"OMGZ! 380 tons of explosives missing, WTF!"noxiousdog wrote:Ignorant about what? What explanation?noun wrote:As Jon Stewart said last night, "so the problem isn't that we were incompetent, it's that we were ignorant."
Really, the explanation doesn't make anyone look very intelligent, does it?
Answers thus far:
1) The explosives were gone before we got there.
2) We didn't know those were explosives.
3) 380 tons is an exaggeration, the number was far less than that.
4) Actually, we're not sure those were explosives at all, but check out these mystery white drums.
Uh, what? This conversation isn't going to turn into one of those goofy "unless you've done the job yourself, you have no room to criticize" ones, is it?noxiousdog wrote:I have no idea what you mean by 2 and 4.noun wrote:"OMGZ! 380 tons of explosives missing, WTF!"noxiousdog wrote:Ignorant about what? What explanation?noun wrote:As Jon Stewart said last night, "so the problem isn't that we were incompetent, it's that we were ignorant."
Really, the explanation doesn't make anyone look very intelligent, does it?
Answers thus far:
1) The explosives were gone before we got there.
2) We didn't know those were explosives.
3) 380 tons is an exaggeration, the number was far less than that.
4) Actually, we're not sure those were explosives at all, but check out these mystery white drums.
So, what then would have been your response?
Thanks a lot for that ND. Apology fully accepted and I'm sorry for reacting so strongly to your post. I made myself look pretty silly too. I am also sorry for bagging on Trig, hell that one story has now been posted three times alone in this thread. It's bound to happen regularly whether we all read each other's posts or not. I'll be returning to being a mostly sane individual now.noxiousdog wrote:It's not personal at all. It's just an observation.Enough wrote:Wow, I'll try to not take that one personally. But misrepresenting me and linking me with Unbreakable/tony72 in one single post is pretty fucking low dude. I didn't stick with the Rather story, rather I kept an open mind that is was constantly changing and didn't immediately jump to the conclusion it was false like you did.noxiousdog wrote: Be honest. Admit you'll accept nearly all anti-Bush stories until they can be proved false. IIRC you stuck to the Dan Rather story long after anyone else besides Unbreakable.
Edit: gah, bbcode invasion.
Are you saying you didn't stick with the Dan Rather story long after everyone else (besides UB)? And I certainly could be wrong. I've slept since then. I will certainly give you the benefit of the doubt at this point. Maybe I am getting you confused with another poster.
And the only reason UB is in there is because he never gave it up, so it would be incorrect for me to say you stuck with it long after everyone else.
After further review, I see you are correct. You have been very even handed (though I do find the issue with WH response kind of odd). My apologies.I typically watch a major story such as that develop over the course of at least a week before I make my mind up about it. And I sure as hell don't blindly accept any story whether it's anti-Bush or not.
I'm sincerely sorry for any mischaracterizations I have placed upon you.
Note all the qualifiers...5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew in Iraq shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein was in the area where tons of explosives disappeared, and may have videotaped some of those weapons.
Using GPS technology and talking with members of the 101st Airborne Division, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS has determined the crew embedded with the troops may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where the ammunition disappeared. The news crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa, and drove two or three miles north of there with soldiers on April 18, 2003.
During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS news crew bunker after bunker of material labelled "explosives." Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get into the bunkers and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords.
Careful, or Enough will have you bitchslapped to kingdom come!Exodor wrote:Possible eyewitness evidence of the explosives being there post-invasion (with thanks to Andrew Sullivan):
Note all the qualifiers...5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew in Iraq shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein was in the area where tons of explosives disappeared, and may have videotaped some of those weapons.
Using GPS technology and talking with members of the 101st Airborne Division, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS has determined the crew embedded with the troops may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where the ammunition disappeared. The news crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa, and drove two or three miles north of there with soldiers on April 18, 2003.
During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS news crew bunker after bunker of material labelled "explosives." Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get into the bunkers and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords.
sigh - miscellaneous other stuffExperts who have studied the images say the barrels on the tape contain the high explosive HMX, and the U.N. markings on the barrels are clear.
"I talked to a former inspector who's a colleague of mine, and he confirmed that, indeed, these pictures look just like what he remembers seeing inside those bunkers," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.
The barrels were found inside sealed bunkers, which American soldiers are seen on the videotape cutting through.
Not to ignore the rest of your case, but let's stop right there. According to other evidence presented in this thread - the last time this stuff was seen prior to the invasion was in July of 2002, when it was declared and sealed. As I recall, they said that they checked the "seals" in January of 2003. That was it. According to *some* of the evidence presented (for a moment your going to have to accept that I am going to weigh ND's links equally against your links/assertions - I'm not prepared to declare it a fact because you believe the links you have - when other links contradict them) - those weapons absolutely were *NOT* verified immediately before the invasion.Meghan wrote:The explosives were there immediately prior to the US invasion. That's fact too.
