talkpointquestion: If 400 tons of munitions can vanish - what about a few hundred barrels of WMD?

26-Oct-2004 | epluribus_2

[epluribus_2]

They (Left) can not have it both ways.

[epluribus_2]

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

[epluribus_2]

>>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.

[alchemist54]

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.

[roses of sharon]

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.

[antivenom]

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

[Law is not justice but process]

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.

[epluribus_2]

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

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

[SeaBiscuit]

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.

[skeeter]

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.

[Sender]

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.

[roses of sharon]

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.

[skeeter]

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.

[roses of sharon]

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.

[Eastbound]

"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!

[skeeter]

Look past what the MSM says and focus on the effect. Every day they are unarguably losing influence.

[skeeter]

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.

[Eastbound]

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

Good point. I agree.