Posted on 10/25/2004 7:11:50 PM PDT by Chicos_Bail_Bonds
NBCNEWS: Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq -- At Least 18 Months Ago (SIREN ALERT)
(Excerpt) Read more at drudgereport.com ...
Yup! I have 9 40-foot trucks with high explosives around the country waiting for rats to pull tricks. (snicker) THAT will get the SS to check me real quick. I will maintain my clearance and settle into a comfy life, thank you. They can check me immediately and I hope can take a joke? People have written books about assassinating Bush, so why not something in the other direction?
I love that ad!
OK, this means that Bush is going to drop the hammer on Tuesday. Ouch!!! Lockhart seems very nervous about this.
If Mik's words can be parsed in this way does this story contradict NYT? And no I'm not a troll, or else I've been trolling for 4 years. Just want to get this as right as the fonts.
According to Kerry in the first debate - we took the wrong course of action against the war on terror by diverting our efforts to an area without terrorists.
Then this story breaks out and Kerry says today that the weapons that were mishandled by a bad commander in chief and they could be used by terrorists to commit crimes abroad or at home.
Which is it.... There are no weapons and terrorists in Iraq - or - there are deadly weapons that can fall into the hands of terrorists and Bush should have protected those weapons?
I just keep praying that God will empower the electorate on 11/2/04 and this country will remain safe under solid and steadfast leadership. God help us all if this joker is elected.
'And no I'm not a troll, or else I've been trolling for 4 years.'
and a very SLOW troll, at that!!
ya, it is confusing as to which came first, but I think it is the way we want, that it was unguarded and gone before we got there....I guess we'll find out tomorrow.
all in all, I feel better than I did 4 hours ago...it seemed a little grim...
more at Drudge?
[In a fresh Page One story set for Tuesday on the matter, the TIMES once again omits any reference to troops not finding any explosives at the site when they arrived in April of 2003. Attempts to reach managing editor Jill Abramson late Monday were unsuccessful.]
"The U.S. Army was at the site one day after the liberation and the weapons were already gone," a top Republican blasted from Washington late Monday.
The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003 when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers.
Dem vp hopeful John Edwards blasted Bush for not securing the explosives: "It is reckless and irresponsible to fail to protect and safeguard one of the largest weapons sites in the country. And by either ignoring these mistakes or being clueless about them, George Bush has failed. He has failed as our commander in chief; he has failed as president."
A senior Bush official e-mailed DRUDGE late Monday: "Let me get this straight, are Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards now saying we did not go into Iraq soon enough? We should have invaded and liberated Iraq sooner?"
Top Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart fired back Monday night: "In a shameless attempt to cover up its failure to secure 380 tons of highly explosive material in Iraq, the White House is desperately flailing in an effort to escape blame. Instead of distorting John Kerry’s words, the Bush campaign is now falsely and deliberately twisting the reports of journalists. It is the latest pathetic excuse from an administration that never admits a mistake, no matter how disastrous."
Developing...
I heard O'Reiley say tonight speaking of October surprises that "they'd better not make something up, report something untrue or I'll be spending a lot of time setting the record straight". I'm wondering is he already knew the truth was coming out about Al QuaQaa? Hannity was the first to mention the NBC report this evening on H&C and said it would be in the news tuesday.
NY Times is a joke.
Would you take a look at my post 204 on this thread. I'd like your opinion. I think we may be getting way out on a limb here, based on he way Miklasewski structured his report. Let me know what you think
We can only confirm that the weapons weren't there when we looked for them.
I read the rest of the available information as saying that the UN can only confirm that weapons were there 3 months before we got there.
The weapons were not lost due to poor security by us - they were transported out of Iraq or dispersed around Iraq between the time that the UN got out and we got in.
The only logical places to go with this are that the UN wasn't going to do anything about these types of weapons so we had to invade, and we should have actually invaded earlier and with more of an element of surprise in the timing, rather than give UN inspectors time to leave. Of course, Kerry is not a man of logic and reason.
> March 20, 2003: When we invaded
> January 25, 2003: 18 months ago.
HAHA! The tables turn... of course if we hadn't paid so much respect to the "global test" we would have been in Iraq earlier.
In reality, we need *more* strength like Bush exhibited, not less.
Koolaid drinkers are in denial about Drudge story.
I understand your point, but if you read the transcript of Mik's story it can be parsed as saying that the 101 spent some time at al Qaqaa, found some stuff, moved on. It does not specifically say that they searched for and found no Cemtex, and concluded the Cemtex had been removed. I'm just not convinced, based on the NBC transcript, that this absolutely contradicts and discredits the NYT story in a way to make it irrelevant.
Just by what Drudge reported, I was under the impression that our forces arrived in Iraq, but did not arrive to secure the facility until April 10, 2003, over a month after fighting. They were not yet able to secure the facility due to the fact that they had to work their way to the area (this is what Drudge appears to be saying) and upon their arrival, the troops did not note the existence of the weapons that are missing. This would mean that they disappeared sometime during the initial stages of the invasion or before the fighting began when the U.N. was responsible for the security of the facility.
Did anyone else have the same analysis of the story?
"The U.S. Army was at the site one day after the liberation and the weapons were already gone," a top Republican blasted from Washington late Monday.
I had similar thoughts in post 211. These weapons were either removed to Syria and possibly Iran or were dispersed throughout the region sometime between the time the UN got out and we got in.
The fighting had not yet ended completely at this time. Drudge reads the story as saying the weapons were gone when the 101 got there. Miklasewki's actual report is not at all clear on that. I think, barring more info, the Dems can still claim that the 101 because it still had fighting to do could not secure the base, and the base was then looted. This would allow Dems to attack the planning for Iraq war as being insufficient in troop strength to secure the country. The results of which have led to deadly attacks on US troops by weapons produced from the unprotected explosives. I just think it's possible we're celebrating much too soon. We need to know what the 101 did at alQaqaa. What was it tasked to find? What did it find and how long did it secure the facility?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.