posted on October 29, 2004 07:19:15 AM new
Video May Show Explosives at Al-Qaqaa
Updated 9:42 AM ET October 29, 2004
WASHINGTON (AP) - Videotape shot by a Minnesota television crew traveling with U.S. troops in Iraq when they first opened the bunkers at the Al-Qaqaa munitions base nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein shows what appeared to be high explosives still in barrels and bearing the markings of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The video taken by KSTP of St. Paul on April 18, 2003, could reinforce suggestions that tons of explosives missing from a munitions installation in Iraq were looted after the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. The video was broadcast nationally Thursday on ABC.
"The photographs are consistent with what I know of Al-Qaqaa," David A. Kay, a former American official who directed the hunt in Iraq for unconventional weapons and visited the site, told The New York Times. "The damning thing is the seals. The Iraqis didn't use seals on anything. So I'm absolutely sure that's an IAEA seal."
The question of what happened to the tons of explosives has become a major issue in the closing days of the presidential campaign.
Democrat John Kerry says the missing explosives _ powerful enough to demolish a building, bring down a jetliner or set off a nuclear weapon _ are another example of the Bush administration's poor planning and incompetence in handling the war in Iraq. President Bush says the explosives were possibly removed by Saddam's forces before the invasion.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld entered the debate Thursday, suggesting the 377 tons of explosives were taken away before U.S. forces arrived, saying any large effort to loot the material afterward would have been detected.
"We would have seen anything like that," he said in one of two radio interviews he gave at the Pentagon. "The idea it was suddenly looted and moved out, all of these tons of equipment, I think is at least debatable."
The Pentagon also declassified and released a single image, taken by reconnaissance aircraft or satellite just days before the war, showing two trucks outside one of the dozens of storage bunkers at the Al-Qaqaa munitions base.
The particular bunker is not one known to have contained any of the missing explosives, and Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said the image only shows that there was some Iraqi activity at the base when it was taken, on March 17. Di Rita said the image says nothing about what happened to the explosives.
Rumsfeld, in one radio interview, also cast doubt on the suggestion of one of his subordinates that Russian forces assisted the Iraqis in removing them.
John Shaw, the deputy U.S. undersecretary of defense for international technology security, suggested to The Washington Times in an interview that the Russians may have been involved, prompting an angry denial from Moscow.
Rumsfeld said, "I have no information on that at all, and cannot validate that even slightly."
But at issue is whether the weapons were moved before or after U.S. forces occupied that region of the country in early April. No one has been able to provide conclusive evidence either way, although Iraqi officials blamed it on poor U.S. security after Baghdad fell.
The Pentagon has said it's looking into the matter, and officials note that 400,000 tons of recovered Iraqi munitions have either been destroyed or are slated to be destroyed.
posted on October 29, 2004 08:02:08 AM new
ABC said the barrels seen in the video were found inside locked bunkers that had been sealed by inspectors from the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency just before the war began. The seal's critical. The fact that there's a photo of what looks like an IAEA seal means that what's behind those doors is HMX," Albright said.
This indicates that explosives were at the al-Qaqaa facility April 18, 2003 and then disappeared so the allegation that the material was moved by the Saddam regime between March 16 and April 9 will not get bush off the hook. Television video from embedded reporters show the material there April 18. As Juan Cole poins out also, the US had air control and al-Qaqaa under surveillance. Any trucks moving material out of the facility could have been eliminated.
"A new low was reached in the Republican Party, out of panic at this story, by Rudi Giuliani, who blamed our troops for the al-Qaqaa catastrophe, saying, ''No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?" So let's get this straight. Bush sends only 100,000 US troops to Iraq, when 500,000 are needed to secure the country. Then when the troops don't have the personpower to do their jobs properly, you blame them? The refreshing thing about Giuliani's remark is its honesty. Surely a lot of fatcat Republicans who are always draping themselves in the flag and exploiting the heroism of US troops actually view them as little more than kitchen help, who can be blamed if the banquet doesn't come off as brilliantly as hoped. Remember the images of Bush in white tie toasting his "base" among the super-wealthy, in Fahrenheit 9/11? It is not the corporals in the US army whom he was toasting."
posted on October 29, 2004 08:23:14 AM new
One of the more interesting spins I have seen on this occurred last night on CNN by that paragon of virtue, Dennis Prager. He said that finding these types of explosives in Iraq proved there were weapons of mass destruction. When it was pointed out to him that these weren't actually WMD's, he said they certainly were. They would kill a lot of people.
Something else I find interesting is how fast the pentagon declassified a picture of trucks at this facility before the war to further obscure what really happened. Does anyone believe that if the video that was released had been in the pentagon's posession that it would have been released to clarify the matter?
They will say and do anything to cover their butts.
posted on October 29, 2004 08:40:07 AM new
The KSTP journalist embedded with the US 101st Airborne was just on Air America Radio. He has dated notes, and his photographer dates all his video, to prove that those munitions were there after the US went through. (View the video here: http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1 Shrub was more concerned with the quick result of taking Baghdad than ordering his troops to search for munitions. Reprehensible.
As a result, those munitions are in the hands of terrorists somewhere. Yeah, I feel safer under shrub.
Doug.
[ edited by risasperson on Oct 29, 2004 08:42 AM ]
posted on October 29, 2004 08:57:24 AM new
ROFL @ helen's ol' blogger. Juan Cole?? LOL
And then Cole tries to do the 'democratic twist' [it's a dance they learned years ago] job on Rudy's words. And who backs them up? A democrat who's there to protest. Very funny.
Rudy's statements were made because good old lying kerry has been blaming this UNPROVEN issue on this President. When challenged that kerry & ilk are attacking our troops and blaming them...the dems claim 'Oh no we're not' we're attacking Bush. Well..the republicans argue...President Bush wasn't on sight to be protecting these weapons....our troops were...so you ARE blaming the troops.
So...what do those sneaky dems like Cole do? They twist Rudy's statement around to sound entirely different than what he was saying.
But that's normal behavior for liars.
helen's full Boston link....
In a Thursday morning television appearance, Giuliani criticized Democrat John Kerry for blaming President Bush for the disappearance of hundreds of tons of explosives in Iraq.
''No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?'' he said on NBC's ''Today'' show.
That rankled Eleanor Kjellman of Henniker, an Air Force veteran whose son Kurt is an Army reservist in the Mideast.
''That was such a demoralizing, destructive statement for Rudolph Giuliani to make. Once again they (the troops) are scapegoats for the administration's failures,'' she said at a Democratic protest before a planned appearance by Giuliani in Bedford.
As Kjellman was speaking out, Giuliani was at a GOP event in Gilford. There, he said that in blaming Bush for the missing explosives, Kerry himself was implicitly blaming the troops.
Giuliani said the country must ''continue on the offense'' against terrorists and ''stop them before they kill more of us.''
I resent the fact that you refer to Juan Cole as helen's ol blogger. You, who rely on Drudge and every other right wing rag that you can find in the muddy filth that you prefer to read.
Juan R. I. Cole is Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History at the History Department of the University of Michigan. A bibliography of his writings may be found here. He has written extensively about modern Islamic movements in Egypt, the Persian Gulf, and South Asia. He has given numerous media and press interviews on the War on Terrorism since September 11, 2001, as well as concerning the Iraq War in 2003. His current research focuses on two contemporary phenomena: 1) Shiite Islam in Iraq and Iran and 2) the "jihadi" or "sacred-war" strain of Muslim radicalism, including al-Qaeda and the Taliban among other groups. Cole commands Arabic, Persian and Urdu and reads some Turkish, knows both Middle Eastern and South Asian Islam, and lived in a number of places in the Muslim world for extended periods of time. His most recent book is Sacred Space and Holy War (IB Tauris 2002). This volume collects some of his work on the history of the Shiite branch of Islam in modern Iraq, Iran and the Gulf. He treated Shi`ism in his co-edited book, Shi`ism and Social Protest (Yale, 1986), of his first monograph, Roots of North Indian Shi`ism in Iran and Iraq (California, 1989). His interest in Iranian religion is further evident in his work on Baha'i studies, which eventuated in his 1998 book, Modernity and the Millennium: The Genesis of the Baha'i Faith in the Nineteenth Century Middle East (Columbia University Press). He has also written a good deal about modern Egypt, including a book, Colonialism and Revolution in the Middle East: Social and Cultural Origins of Egypt's `Urabi Movement (Princeton, 1993). His concern with comparative history and Islamics is evident in his edited Comparing Muslim Societies (Michigan, 1992).
posted on October 29, 2004 09:22:45 AM newJuan Cole??
Obviously some may be too ignorant to know who Juan Cole is if they only choose to bottomfeed the gossip found on low-brow rag sites.
Juan Cole is very respected and knowledgeable.
Rather, he grew up in a peripatetic military family that happened to be in Albuquerque, N.M., when he was born, and had two long tours in France (a total of seven years) and one 18-month stay at Kagnew Station, in Asmara, Eritrea (then Ethiopia), and which lived all over the U.S. After going to Northwestern and becoming interested in Islamics and the Middle East, he went on to live six years in the Arab world, and another two and a half in South Asia (India and Pakistan, mainly Delhi, Lucknow and Lahore). He writes primarily about three broad areas: the social and cultural history of modern Egypt; the religious and cultural history of modern Iran; and religion in South Asia. In addition to writing history, he enjoys translating, and has rendered into English books by Kahlil Gibran and Mirza Abu'l-Fadl Gulpaygani, as well as working on Urdu fiction. His hobbies include reading literary novels and science fiction, learning languages, bicycling, and the World Wide Web. He married the former Shahin Malik in Lahore in 1982, and they have one son, Arman, born in 1987, (who produced some of the graphics throughout this site).
posted on October 29, 2004 09:26:08 AM new
Helen beat me to it. I don't know who Linda_k thinks she's playing to when she always discounts all views from respected sources.
posted on October 29, 2004 09:28:32 AM new
As commnader in chief Bush is reponsible for what goes on in Iraq. The buck stops with him.
Linda you highlighted wrong part of the sentence:
''That was such a demoralizing, destructive statement for Rudolph Giuliani to make. Once again they (the troops) are scapegoats for the administration's failures,'she said at a Democratic protest before a planned appearance by Giuliani in Bedford.
The lady in that quote was criticizing Guiliani for making the troops (and your son) a scapegoat for the President's failures in Iraq. You need to read more carefully.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
"Linda you highlighted wrong part of the sentence:"
''That was such a demoralizing, destructive statement for Rudolph Giuliani to make. Once again they (the troops) are scapegoats for the administration's failures,'she said at a Democratic protest before a planned appearance by Giuliani in Bedford.
The lady in that quote was criticizing Guiliani for making the troops (and your son) a scapegoat for the President's failures in Iraq. You need to read more carefully.
Thanks, logansdad for pointing out linda's attempt to obscure the meaning of my article with selective bolding.
posted on October 29, 2004 10:00:26 AM new
getalife - [i]If you criticise Bush, you are actually criticising the troops on the ground.
Giuliani said what he said and I fail to see how it was taken out of context[/i]
You're not alone in failing to see what's really being said. It appears most kerry supporters here are unable to see it either.
Giuliani above statement was in response to kerry's accusation. Giuliana DOES NOT feel our troops/their leaders did anything wrong. He IS NOT accusing our troops of anything. He's basically saying that for kerry to blame the President, kerry is in reality blaming our troops. BECAUSE what they did or didn't do there [what orders they were given] didn't come from the WH, but rather the Pentagon.
It's the left who always works to make some believe they are able to separate their so-called position of 'we support our troops'....we just don't support their mission. If you don't support their mission, if you don't hope they will win the struggle their in, if you want them to admit defeat....that's NOT being on their side. Like their assinine statements of 'that's why we want them brought home' nonsense. Rather than the left supporting them by cheering their accomplishments on - rather than questioning 'what good have they done over there'...'nothing'.
Once our soldiers are sent to war, imo, it's imperative that we support their mission...otherwise it hurts their moral...discourages them...look how often in the beginning they were asking what Americans were saying about the war...it was important to them. They wanted to know they were being supported. And again, imo, it's always the liberals that let them down.
Actions speak louder than words.
-----------
logansdad
I think my explanation above answers your post.
With the exception of the below comment.
she said at a Democratic protest before a planned appearance by Giuliani in Bedford.
The lady in that quote was criticizing Guiliani for making the troops (and your son) a scapegoat for the President's failures in Iraq[/i].
You need to read more carefully.
Nothing wrong with my reading....it's this womans [A DEM] above and the dems 'twist' that I see...that you can't see. You're not taking Rudy's statements in the context he was saying them. He WAS NOT criticising our troops as you liberals who continue to try to make it look like he did insist. He was making a point about another one of kerry's lies.
posted on October 29, 2004 10:05:16 AM new
You're getting funnier and funnier, helen. Now you need logansdad to point things out for you/to you? hahahahaha
NO, this was the point being made in Rudy's statement that all you liberals are trying, unsuccessfully though, to TWIST.
"There, he said that in blaming Bush for the missing explosives, Kerry himself was implicitly blaming the troops." And he was....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And they, the interrogator went through all of these statements from John Kerry. He starts pounding on the table. 'See here, this naval officer, he admits that you are a criminal.'" Excerpt from "Stolen Honor"
- James H. Warner Former Vietnam POW
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 29, 2004 10:15:32 AM new
As usual the lefties all upset over a non issue. All of you are failing to realize that 100's of thousands of pounds of explosives recovered from other bunkers been destroyed by Coalition troops.
------------
Photos point to removal of weapons
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
U.S. intelligence agencies have obtained satellite photographs of truck convoys that were at several weapons sites in Iraq in the weeks before U.S. military operations were launched, defense officials said yesterday.
The photographs indicate that Iraq was moving arms and equipment from its known weapons sites, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
According to one official, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, known as NGA, "documented the movement of long convoys of trucks from various areas around Baghdad to the Syrian border."
The official said the convoys are believed to include shipments of sensitive armaments, including equipment used in making plastic explosives and nuclear weapons.
About 380 tons of RDX and HMX, used in making such arms, were reported missing from the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility, though the Pentagon and an embedded NBC News correspondent said the facility appeared to have been emptied by the time U.S. forces got there.
The photographs bolster the claims of Pentagon official John A. Shaw, who told The Washington Times on Wednesday that recent intelligence reports indicate Russian special forces units took part in a sophisticated dispersal operation from January 2003 to March 2003 to move key weapons out of Iraq.
In Moscow, the Russian government denied that its forces were involved in removing weapons from Iraq, dismissing the claims as "far-fetched and ridiculous."
"I can state officially that the Russian Defense Ministry and its structural divisions could not have been involved in the disappearance of the explosives, because Russian servicemen were not in Iraq long before the beginning of the American-British operation in that country," Defense Ministry spokesman Col. Vyacheslav Sedov told Interfax news agency.
Bush administration officials reacted cautiously to information provided by Mr. Shaw, who said details of the Russian "spetsnaz" forces' involvement in a program of document-shredding and weapons dispersal came from two European intelligence services.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters aboard Air Force One that he was unaware of the information in The Times report.
"I know that there is some new information that has come to light in the last couple of days," Mr. McClellan said, noting that another news report said the amount of high-explosive materials may have been less than 377 tons, as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) claims.
Asked about foreign intelligence reports of Russian troops moving Iraq's weapons to Syria, Mr. McClellan said, "I have no information that points in that direction."
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said in a interview on the Laura Ingraham radio show that she also was not aware of the information about Russian troops relocating Saddam's weapons to Syria, Lebanon and possibly Iran.
Defense officials said the information has been closely held within the Pentagon because Mr. Shaw, a deputy undersecretary of defense of international technology security, has been working with the Pentagon inspector general in investigating the Russian role in the weapons transfers.
Information in the inspector general office is not widely shared within the policy and intelligence communities.
The Pentagon is still investigating the fate of the explosives and possible Russian involvement.
Officials said numerous intelligence reports in the past two years indicate Saddam used trucks and aircraft to withdraw weapons from Iraq before March 2003. However, the new information indicates that Russian troops were directly involved in assisting the Iraqi military and intelligence services to secure and move the arms.
Documents reviewed by one defense official include specific Russian military unit itineraries for the truck convoys.
The arms that were taken out of the country included missile parts, nuclear-related equipment, tank and aircraft parts, and chemicals used in making poison gas weapons, the official said.
Regarding the satellite photographs, defense officials said the photographs bolster the information obtained from the European intelligence services on the Russian arms-removal program.
The Russian special forces troops were housed at a computer center near the Russian Embassy in Baghdad and left the country shortly before the U.S. invasion was launched March 20, 2003.
Harold Hough, a satellite photographic specialist, said commercial satellite images taken shortly before U.S. forces reached Baghdad revealed Russian transport aircraft at Baghdad's international airport near a warehouse.
"My thought was that the Russians were eager to get something out of Iraq quickly," Mr. Hough said. "But it is quite possible that the aircraft was used to transport the Russian forces."
Also yesterday, the IAEA said it warned the United States about the vulnerability of explosives stored at Al-Qaqaa after Iraq's Tuwaitha nuclear complex was looted.
"After we heard reports of looting at the Tuwaitha site in April 2003, the agency's chief Iraq inspectors alerted American officials that we were concerned about the security of the high explosives stored at Al-Qaqaa," IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming told the Associated Press.
She did not say which officials were notified or exactly when.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
posted on October 29, 2004 10:22:14 AM new
Poor linduh, once again howling into the wind unable to see what the rest of the world sees.
The proof is there(getting back to the topic).
Unprepared troops followed orders and are getting blamed for the bush administration's total lack of planning, training, supplying and SUPPORTING our troops.
Like Rummy Rumsfeld said about looting(these explosives were looted) , "stuff happens".
That was his level of concern about the people in Iraq, preserving order, making it safe.
The buck stops with the CIC as linduh is so fond of calling bushy. linda, CIC means Commander in Chief, the LEADER of our Armed Forces, it's HIS fault.
posted on October 29, 2004 10:30:41 AM new
Linda, your answer is pure BS. You must think I'm as stupid as....... Well I'll leave that one alone.
As for Bear's posting about the photos taken befor the war, that is surely putting the horse before the cart, as the video referred to in the title of this thread was shot after the war started. Get your time line straight.
As for me I'm going to the elections office right now to get two absentee ballots to be cast in the State of Florida for Kerry that will truly count. I'm only going to cast one of them as I know how you bushies will spin it if it isn't spelled out.
posted on October 29, 2004 10:43:01 AM new
No getalife, I don't think you're stupid...I know you're brainwashed to the hype the left puts out. That's quite clear.
You on the left [posting here] just don't ever want to support our Armed Forces. You refuse to recognize that they would NEVER leaved any weapons that could present a danger to them self or fall in the wrong hands. IF they had seen these materials...it would have been dealt with. According to what we're currently hearing...it sounds like we did deal with it.
Our troops entered Iraq and had three main goals.
To take down saddam
To protect themselves, the coaliation and the innocent Iraqi's
and to get control of certain areas.
While following their mission seeking to achieve their goals....here's kerry blasting away at their supposed failures.
He's not on their side....he's a phoney, a liar and was a traitor to this Nation during the VN war. He will say anything, and he has, to get elected. Not a word has to be truth....just get those votes and get elected. Then most likely turn this country over to he UN.
posted on October 29, 2004 10:54:14 AM new
linda the liar is getting desperate!
A TRAITOR, you twitch, is a "man" using his daddy's influence to keep his sorry, chickenshit asp out of combat in Vietnam. BUSH was unwilling to fight for his country!
You post, " IF they had seen these materials...it would have been dealt with. According to what we're currently hearing...it sounds like we did deal with it. "
First, stupid, they did see these materials, they were filmed on DATED film. Second, the soldiers follow orders and if they were told to leave these materials which is apparently what they did, then they follow orders...orders which come from their CIC!
"It sounds like we did deal with it" !!!!!!!
Good GAWD!
What an idiot! There NOT there , they were LOOTED.
How is that dealing with it???????????
linda, no matter what crap you hand out, this administration LET a tremendous amount of explosives disappear into the desert. PERIOD!
The world knows it. Sorry it bursts your coccoon you're hiding in but it's a fact in your FACE! HA!
posted on October 29, 2004 11:15:46 AM new
....Right after the Pentagon admits that they have no definitive answer, Linda wants to tell us what it "sounds like".. Unbelievable! We don't hear your "sounds", Linda. We rely on factual evidence.
posted on October 29, 2004 11:46:40 AM new
Why rely on "factual evidence" when faith and religious fervor can be relied upon.
The following is the first two paragraphs of an article from the New York Times Magazine written by Ron Suskind who was "the senior national-affairs reporter for The Wall Street Journal from 1993 to 2000." Good conservative credentials, I might add.
I've included a link in case anyone wants to read the article. It's quite long but excellent. I apologize for changing the subject a bit, but think it is relevant in light of the disregard of "factual evidence" which some people on this board seem to delight in.
Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.
''Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . .
posted on October 29, 2004 12:01:10 PM new
Linda you can try to spin your response any way you like to get your point across but you are still wrong.
Giuliani criticized Kerry for Kerry blaming Bush. That is the only part of the article that you interpreted correctly.
Giuliani said Bush is not to blame but rather the troops are to blame since they are in Iraq. You need to re-read the statement sentence by sentence.
Furthermore, you don't like when people try to twist your words or try to make it out that they know what you are thinking or feeling, but that is exactly what you did in this statement:
Giuliana DOES NOT feel our troops/their leaders did anything wrong. He IS NOT accusing our troops of anything. He's basically saying that for Kerry to blame the President, Kerry is in reality blaming our troops. BECAUSE what they did or didn't do there [what orders they were given] didn't come from the WH, but rather the Pentagon.
Linda don't try to be a Miss Cleo, because you are not.
''That was such a demoralizing, destructive statement for Rudolph Giuliani to make. Once again they (the troops) are scapegoats for the administration's failures,'' she said at a Democratic protest before a planned appearance by Giuliani in Bedford
So what if the woman was at a Democratic protest. She has a right to protest her feelings against the Bush administration. If you once again read the first part of the article again you will see Guiliani actually did make the statement you claim he did not. It is posted in the USA Today that Guiliani did actually make that statement.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on October 29, 2004 04:47:23 PM new
Kind of funny how Helen was bosting about how there were no weapons in Iraq and I kept telling her that there were and they were all over the news. I guess being from Minnesota and I actually watch KSTP, All of the lefties kept saying that they were not there. Now that I have been proven right, you are stating there were. You guys flip flop as bad as your loser candidate. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
posted on October 29, 2004 05:05:42 PM new Pentagon Briefing on Missing Explosives
I just watched the Larry DiRita host a Pentagon briefing on the issue of the missing explosives at al-Qaqaa.
I was disgusted by the political spin DiRita was putting out. The Pentagon should be serving the military needs of the whole United States, not of the Bush administration.
DiRita kept talking about RDX plastic explosives, when the real issue is what happened to the HMX, which is the stuff that can be used to detonate an atomic bomb. At one point DiRita insisted that the Pentagon refers to it all as RDX and doesn't distinguish HMX (!) He brought a poor US army major, Austin Pearson, out to talk about how his unit had destroyed over 200 tons Iraqi munitions, including tons of stuff from al-Qaqaa.
But if DiRita thought that this officer would clear the whole thing up, he was clearly disappointed. The major said explicitly that he had not seen any seals of the International Atomic Energy Commission, which means that he cannot testify that his unit destroyed the HMX. Then he was asked if insurgents could have carried off 150 tons of that stuff in a short period of time as a practical matter. He replied that it seems like a lot, but in fact it could be done really quickly.
Then he let it slip that his unit was at al-Qaqaa on April 13, before the KSTP video was shot of US soldiers examining HMX there. So Pearson's unit could not have removed all the HMX at that time. Since he didn't see IAEA seals, it seems likely that his unit didn't remove any HMX.
No one doubts that the US military has blown up enormous amounts of Iraqi ordnance. The point is that they have also not blown up enormous amounts of Iraqi ordnance, and that the country's 80 major arms depots have gone on being looted throughout the US occupation because the military was not given enough troops by Bush to guard the depots.
Conclusion: The DiRita performance today was embarrassing to Bush. His Pentagon spokesman doesn't know the difference between RDX and HMX and he hasn't debriefed his chief witness, Maj. Pearson, so as to avoid being blindsided when the major says he never saw IAEA seals, that looters could have carted off tons of HMX quickly and easily, and that his unit was at al-Qaqaa before the date of the damning KSTP video!
Juan Cole?? LOL 
Excerpt from "Stolen Honor"