Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

talkpointquestion: If 400 tons of munitions can vanish - what about a few hundred barrels of WMD?
26-Oct-2004 | epluribus_2

Posted on 10/26/2004 6:37:04 AM PDT by epluribus_2

They (Left) can not have it both ways.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: hypocracy; wmd
anyone got the quote from Duelfer, like "a lot of material was confirmed to cross the border to Syria..."
1 posted on 10/26/2004 6:37:05 AM PDT by epluribus_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2

Exactly!


2 posted on 10/26/2004 6:37:35 AM PDT by Heff ("Liberty is not America's gift to the world, it's the Almighty's gift to humanity" GW Bush 4/12/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2

Or a few pounds of Biological Warfare Agent.


3 posted on 10/26/2004 6:38:20 AM PDT by 9999lakes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2
Now you've gone and done it, asking a question that the media would rather not address.
4 posted on 10/26/2004 6:38:59 AM PDT by PigRigger (Send donations to http://www.AdoptAPlatoon.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2

How dare you use logic!!!!!


5 posted on 10/26/2004 6:39:42 AM PDT by LRS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2

Why aren't these munitions considered WMDs?


6 posted on 10/26/2004 6:39:59 AM PDT by Pfesser (I was for Kerry before I was against him. LOL.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2
They (Left) can not have it both ways.

That won't stop them from trying. Its up to the administration to keep them from getting away with it.

7 posted on 10/26/2004 6:40:19 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2

If skerry would win by some awful fluke, we are in deep s***. and God help our troops in Iraq, the terrorists will flood the country to kill them. And skerry will do NOTHING.


8 posted on 10/26/2004 6:40:22 AM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2

Great point!


9 posted on 10/26/2004 6:40:33 AM PDT by animoveritas (Dominus nos benedicat, et ab omni malo defendat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pfesser

To read the NYTimes story it almost sounded like the RDX etc.
was deemed to be WMDs. They are high grade military explosives, nothing more or less, and mere drops in the ocean of munitions in Iraq.


10 posted on 10/26/2004 6:42:25 AM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

The Slimes think you are stupid.


11 posted on 10/26/2004 6:43:09 AM PDT by demlosers ( ONI: “Lieutenant Kerry wasn’t cleared to know what time it was!”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2

12 posted on 10/26/2004 6:44:15 AM PDT by BigWaveBetty (Can I get me a hunting license here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demlosers

Oh yeah! I think The Slimes momma is ugly!


13 posted on 10/26/2004 6:45:17 AM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
It has nothing to do with the administration.

It matters not what Bush says or does, or what Kerry says or does.

As I have said for years, the fix is in, the NY media elite are political organizations.

They have control over stories to run or not to run, the context, history, quotes, leaks, ect.

They have complete power over us, and have shaped our moods, politics and culture for decades.

But they right has never learned who the enemy is, maybe after 2004 they will.
14 posted on 10/26/2004 6:46:06 AM PDT by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2

the left only rants and reacts angrily. They are devoid of imagination or common sense. have you ever heard of a bleeding-heart entrepreneur? NO they do not exist. Bleeding heart liberals are in two camps: limousine liberals or pseudo socialists that find refuge in academia, the media, entertainment business or gov't insts. The proverbial
"think outside the box" mantra is a riddle in the mind of a liberal. Groupthink is their preferred analitical process.
You and I and millions of folks with more common sense that all those morons at an Oscars ceremony can rationalize that but to the left it's all Bush's fault.


15 posted on 10/26/2004 6:46:10 AM PDT by bubman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2

Please report to the New York Times for reprogramming.


16 posted on 10/26/2004 6:47:16 AM PDT by RightthinkinAmerican (Is the Republican attack machine an assault weapon?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2

Duelfer quote:

"A lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria," Duelfer said. "There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points. We've got a lot of data to support that, including people discussing it.

http://216.26.163.62/2004/me_iraq_10_18.html


17 posted on 10/26/2004 6:48:46 AM PDT by BigWaveBetty (Can I get me a hunting license here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2
First need to ask the set up question.:

"Why did the UN lie about Saddam having these weapons"?

18 posted on 10/26/2004 7:05:40 AM PDT by Jim_Curtis (Liberals lie at the premise, accept their premise and you can only lose the argument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9999lakes; All

exactly. Remember that thwarted chemical attack destined for Jordan that was caught crossing over from Syria about a year ago?

three points to remember on that event:

1. After interrogation, the terrorists claimed to have been contacted by an AQ rep, given the money for the operation.

2. The analysis of the weapon revealed that Syria was not known (via world intel orgs, suspected...) to have been working on chem/bio weapons programs for the captured stuff - but the weapons WERE of the type that SADDAM had been working on; and...

3. (the BIGGIE!!!) Our MSM didn't report on this attack until about 9 or ten days AFTER it happened!!!

What this tells me is that the MSM-Commies feared the story would lend credence (as it does...) to the suspicions that Saddam shipped WMD (along with 3 billion to finance continueing war...) to Syria - and they tried sitting on the story in the hopes it wouldn't "grab legs". But it did, at which point they timidly reported it, though (luckily for them...) it was overtaken by other events in the public's consciousness.

The 4th estate has truly become the "Fifth Column"... and mark my words, one day soon there will be a reckoning with them.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

CGVet58


19 posted on 10/26/2004 7:08:31 AM PDT by CGVet58 (God has granted us Liberty, and we owe Him Courage in return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon
Thats my point. If the administration doesn't speak for itself - NO one will. Bush needs to make these points himself, leaving the media to have to directly contradict his words.

Thats the way Reagan did it, and the media was just as bad (worse, I think, because they used to deny their bias) then.

20 posted on 10/26/2004 7:11:17 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PigRigger

(donning pajamas... pajamahideen our work is just beginning...)


21 posted on 10/26/2004 7:12:08 AM PDT by epluribus_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PigRigger

>>Now you've gone and done it, asking a question that the >>media would rather not address

Maybe Tweety or Imus will pose this question to JFng in their last prevote lovefest.


22 posted on 10/26/2004 7:13:26 AM PDT by epluribus_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2

Does anyone remember during the march toward Bagdad several sites were located that contained lots of 55 gallon drums of pesticides? Guess what the precurresor to nerve agent is--you got it pesticides. In the months we were begging at the UN and the period of NO wepons inspectors--Saddam was busy shipping or hiding all his weapons.


23 posted on 10/26/2004 7:18:33 AM PDT by alchemist54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
Which is MY point, they do not report what he says, THEY choose what sound-bites to report, ie, the 1/2 hour radio reports will be:

No soundbites about ammo.

Soundbite with a Kerry response calling Bush a lier.

Soundbite with the qualifier of "on the defense, Bush said...."

Soundbite with the "reporter" telling the story the way the "reporter" wants to tell the story.

The "media", Hollywood, and academia are MUCH MORE powerful than they were in the 80's.
24 posted on 10/26/2004 7:20:51 AM PDT by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Pfesser

NO some were considered legit because they were used in mining...


25 posted on 10/26/2004 7:25:25 AM PDT by antivenom ("Never argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level - then beat you with experience.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2
How big is 340 tons of explosive? Assuming a density not much different from that of water, or about one gram per cubic centimeter, one ton of explosives would have a volume of one cubic meter. This would be just the explosive with no accounting for packaging. 340 tons, then, would be 340 cubic meters or, in one pile, a stack 10 meters by 10 meters at the base and 3.4 meters high. To translate that into feet (as I still must do, despite years in grad school), maybe 35 feet square and 12 feet high. The NYT is asking us to believe looters carried off several tractor-trailer loads of explosives? Undetected? And hid 340 cubic meters of explosives for 18 months? I could have believed it if it was one ton, but 340? Moving that kind of volume takes organization and heavy equipment. IF it was moved after the invasion, it was moved pursuant to a regime plan set before the invasion using preassigned equipment. And, as someone on another thread pointed out, if these explosives did exist and someone was able to hide several hundred cubic meters of it somewhere, then how much easier would it be to hide just one cubic meter of sarin, or ten liters of anthrax, or 100 kilos of plutonium . . . ?

As many on this thread, I believe the explosives must have gone to Syria. If it had not it would be showing up in bombs all over Iraq and the market for old artillery and mortar shells would be nil. That is not the case.
26 posted on 10/26/2004 7:28:26 AM PDT by Law is not justice but process
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon

you forgot the soundbite,"with polls all showing the race a dead heat"...

when many (at least half) show Bush building a consistent lead.


27 posted on 10/26/2004 7:31:24 AM PDT by epluribus_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2
Question to MSM: If 400 tons of munitions can vanish - what about a few hundred barrels of WMD?

MSM Answer: duh..ah, er duhh...well um, er.. iiit iit's a lie, a li li lie, aa lie I tt tell you, sss..someone is lieing sputter fume sputter.. a lllie help mme I'm mmmelting...

The left MSM will never concede the truth because their running right along side skerry.
28 posted on 10/26/2004 7:39:47 AM PDT by SeaBiscuit (God Bless President GWB and our Brave Troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon
Ten years ago Dan Rather's memo would have been considered the gospel truth.

This administration needs to speak up - with the alternative media today there are many more ways to get their story out.

29 posted on 10/26/2004 7:59:14 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Pfesser
Why aren't these munitions considered WMDs?

Oh, come on, 380 tons of high explosive (not counting the 400,000 tons we secured) can't do any mass destruction. Continue with the 'Bush lied' plan.

30 posted on 10/26/2004 8:03:49 AM PDT by Sender (We believe that the world will be fairer and more beautiful and cleaner without America... -Osama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

They HAVE spoken up, the "alternative media" is only us.

The real media are Bill Maher, Michael Moore, NYT, CBSABCNPRWP, ect.

They are winning, and have been for 20 years.


31 posted on 10/26/2004 8:49:23 AM PDT by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon
I've been watching the MSM trade in liberal lies since Watergate, and you will be happy to know that you are very incorrect.

Contrarily, the MSM are finally having their heads handed to them - the '350 tons of explosives' fiasco is the latest example.

There is a 'paradigm shift' currently underway in mass communications which will have huge consequences - which is why the left is coming unglued.

32 posted on 10/26/2004 9:35:11 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
Respectfully, you are wrong:

Clinton: A bad boy.

Starr: A Christian pervert.

Bush: Corrupt, sinister, evil, incompetent, dumb, a Christian fanatic that started a war and killed innocents, a drunk and dope head.

Saddam: Innocent typical tyrant.

OBL: Smarter than Bush. This is conventional wisdom, and a man like President Bush is at best tied with a Kerry/UN/Soros ticket. Dan Rather and the NYT are still dominant and will be until they no longer exist.
33 posted on 10/26/2004 9:51:27 AM PDT by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
"Thats my point. If the administration doesn't speak for itself - NO one will. Bush needs to make these points himself, leaving the media to have to directly contradict his words."

I don't know, skeeter. We're doing pretty good right here speaking for the administration. It carries more weight when your friends speak well of you than if you spoke well of yourself. Don't underestimate the number of web lurkers and the exponential spread of word-of-mouth 'advertising.'

I really don't think too many people wait for the newspapers to find out what's happening in the world today, nor with the presence of 'google,' do they put much faith in anything they hear or read from the MSM.

Now that the networks have done a good job trashing themselves without our help, I think we are seeing the dawn of a new day not only in news dissemination, but honesty in politics and government as well. Wait'll the storm clouds pass. The internet rules!

Boy, do I feel optimistic today. Heh!

34 posted on 10/26/2004 9:57:31 AM PDT by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy Be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon
Look past what the MSM says and focus on the effect. Every day they are unarguably losing influence.
35 posted on 10/26/2004 9:59:18 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
Fair enough, but I still believe a few direct & well chosen words by Bush himself would help. As effective as the alternative media has become at countering the MSM, there's still a half day/full day lag in getting the info out that might make a critical difference depending upon the situation.

Even the MSM would have to immediately cover Bush's comments, if even to refute them.

36 posted on 10/26/2004 10:05:57 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
"Even the MSM would have to immediately cover Bush's comments, if even to refute them."

Good point. I agree.

37 posted on 10/26/2004 10:33:03 AM PDT by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy Be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson