Mufumonk Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by scskin Maybe I'm a little nieve but wouldn't a massive movement like this be detectable to our satellites? From what I remember, we have SAT images of cargo trucks moving in and out of Syria during the time leading up to the war. That would seem to explain alot of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Don't remember well enough, but I don't think they ever claimed the trucks were moving to Syria back then, because those trucks were supposed to be carrying the WMD's and Mobile Labs for WMD's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter's Better Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Here is the point. 1. Everyone and there mother was making a TON of money selling / stealing from the Oil for Food program. 2. Anyone selling weapons to Iraq under the radar stood to make a TON of cash. 3. Even if we have proof that a 3rd country helped move weapons out of Iraq -- in the game of International policy you can't let the your populace know that. 4. How would you deal with Russia if we discovered they actually were doing this? We certainly won't "sanction" them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 So, what your saying is that if the US gov't knew conclusively that the WMD's had been moved to Syria by the Russians prior to the advent of the invasion the best thing for them to do would be to lie to the American people about this information, commence with the invasion and ignore for almost two years the Russians, Syrians, their complicity with Iraq, and the whereabouts and control of these now lesser secured WMD's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by Burgold So, what your saying is that if the US gov't knew conclusively that the WMD's had been moved to Syria by the Russians prior to the advent of the invasion the best thing for them to do would be to lie to the American people about this information, commence with the invasion and ignore for almost two years the Russians, Syrians, their complicity with Iraq, and the whereabouts and control of these now lesser secured WMD's? Love how you throw "lie" into this. Looks like the only lies here are those you and the rest of the left are throwing out to spin this as a negative for Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 edit: NM, people that dont want to let the truth come out will not listen to it as its trickling... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballplaya0 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Despite the "accuracy" of this report, it's great that both Iran and Russia have endorsed Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Ok folks we may have to spread the news ourselves if the mainstream media will not...time to get to work.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by ballplaya0 Despite the "accuracy" of this report, it's great that both Iran and Russia have endorsed Bush. Just as great as yesterday's Al Qaida tape that practically endorsed Kerry? Or maybe the ringing endorsements from corrupt France? Or how about the Arafat endorsement for Kerry? By the way, please provide the link for the Iran claim. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by dannyboy70 Anyone who would NOT want this to be true is UNAMERICAN, or at the very least, an AMERICA HATER. Why would you consider someone anti-american for not wanting weapons to be in Syrian hands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 So.... when do we invade Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE HAMMER'IN HOG Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by SkinInsite So.... when do we invade Russia. Syria is probably the next target, they have been to helpful to the wrong people, and Russia right now is trying to defuse a possible situation with us with it's endorcement of Bush. Let's face it we all pretty much new there was a smoking gun somewhere, it was just a matter of time before we could prove it, I do think this should be approached cautiously though, until all evidance has been presented and confirmed, there is a reason the left has been screaming no WMD 5 minutes after we attacked, they know Iraq had them but they figured they might be able to beat the time line for the election before we could prove it, thus politicizing the war, DISPICABLE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 From original article: "The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that the Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units during the conflict. U.S. forces defeated the defenders around April 3 and found the gates to the facility open, the Pentagon said in a statement yesterday. A military unit in charge of searching for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, then inspected Al-Qaqaa on May 8, May 11 and May 27, 2003, and found no high explosives that had been monitored in the past by the IAEA. The Pentagon said there was no evidence of large-scale movement of explosives from the facility after April 6." ------------------------- So let me see if I have the time schedule correct. We defeat forces guarding explosives April 3rd. We start watching (not guarding?) the area to see if anybody takes anything out April 6th. We actually go check to see what's there in May. We are then shocked nothing remains of the explosives. Is that some great planning or what? In a section of their speeches on the campaign trail yesterday, both Bush and Cheney said Kerry doesn't know what happened to the explosives. There is a part of me that says "well duh!" The problem isn't that Kerry doesn't know where the explosives are now. The problem is that none of us know, and that we didn't take the steps necessary at the time for us to know now where the explosives are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo da Magnificent Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Why all the handwringing over a story that the Washington Times PULLED? I mean, if even the WT can't back this up . . .:doh: Mulder and Scully need to get in on this. I guess the space aliens are still mad Gore didn't win [after their front page endorsement] and took all the WMD and exposives . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by Waldo da Magnificent Why all the handwringing over a story that the Washington Times PULLED? I mean, if even the WT can't back this up . . .:doh: Mulder and Scully need to get in on this. I guess the space aliens are still mad Gore didn't win [after their front page endorsement] and took all the WMD and exposives . . . Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you had bothered to read the thread, you would realize that the article is up, and is the headlining article on the front page of the washington times website. Now tell me, just how red is your face right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 :doh: They didn't pull it, it was just moved or soemthing to a different location...or maybe the first link was wrong... anyway stop whining... This is big news...and it is vitally important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gstahl Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Administrations answers on the explosives (links on the bottom)... ANSWER #1 – THEY WERE GONE WHEN WE GOT THERE: Administration spokesman Dan Senor said on CNN that "there's a very high probability that those weapons weren't even there before the war." All the evidence, however, suggests the opposite. In an Oct. 25 AP story, a Pentagon official said, "US-led coalition troops had searched Al Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact." According to Today's New York Times, after U.S. troops came through, Iraqis on the scene in Al Qaqaa "described an orgy of theft" as the sensitive military site was picked clean by looters. Iraq's top science official, Mohammed al-Sharaa, confirmed these reports, saying, "It is impossible that these materials could have been taken from this site before the regime's fall. The officials that were inside this facility (Al Qaqaa) beforehand confirm that not even a shred of paper left it before the fall." ANSWER #2 – WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT: White House in some cases has simply plead ignorance. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "We were informed on October 15th. Condi Rice was informed days after that. This is all in the last, what, 10 days now." What they're not talking about: The New York Times reported that Iraqi officials say they warned Paul Bremer, the American head of the occupation authority, that Al Qaqaa had probably been looted in May 2004, six months ago. ANSWER #3 – WE'VE SECURED LOTS OF OTHER MUNITIONS: White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan tried to minimize the importance of the 380 tons of explosives that went missing, saying, "400,000 tons of munitions have been seized or destroyed by coalition forces." But McClellan is comparing apples to oranges. The 400,000 tons the White House cites refers to munitions – including guns and ammunition. Pound for pound, the 380 tons of explosives are much, much more powerful. For example, "the bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound of the same type of material." ANSWER #4 – THE NBC STORY: The Bush campaign spun an NBC News story in an attempt to bolster its answer, charging, "NBC Nightly News later reported that on April 10, 2003, one day after Iraq was liberated, US troops entered Al Qaqaa and did not find the explosives." NBC News, however, resisted that characterization. What the network actually said: "Military officials tell NBC News that on April 10, 2003, when the Second Brigade of the 101st Airborne entered the Al Qaqaa weapons facility, south of Baghdad, that those troops were actually on their way to Baghdad, that they were not actively involved in the search for any weapons, including the high explosives, HMX and RDX...And because the Al Qaqaa facility is so huge, it's not clear that those troops from the 101st were actually anywhere near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX." So, the administration did not lie, the troops really did not find any HMX or RDX but they seem to not have been looking either (the full truth). ADMINISTRATION WAS WARNED: In a blistering op-ed in the Boston Globe, former Ambassador Peter Galbraith describes the widespread looting of sensitive materials in Iraq as a "preventable disaster." Iraq's sensitive material was stored in only a few known locations, all of which were closely monitored by the international community. U.S. troops, however, were not given any relevant intelligence about these sites from the White House and there was never a plan in place to secure them after the invasion. According to Lt. Col. Fred Wellman, spokesman for one of the first units to reach Al Qaqaa, "orders were not given from higher to search or to secure the facility or to search for [explosives]." Iraqi witnesses to looting at Al Qaqaa also say Al Qaqaa "employees asked the Americans to protect the site but were told this was not the soldiers' responsibility." Links to back up the above information... CNN story Under seal since 1991 Looting in 2003 Iraqi's deny explosives disappeared before the war Whitehouse just found out Bremer told Lots of munitions destroyed Troops did not search for HMX and RDX Preventable No orders to search Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by Burgold So, what your saying is that if the US gov't knew conclusively that the WMD's had been moved to Syria by the Russians prior to the advent of the invasion the best thing for them to do would be to lie to the American people about this information, commence with the invasion and ignore for almost two years the Russians, Syrians, their complicity with Iraq, and the whereabouts and control of these now lesser secured WMD's? The key word in my quote is "if." If they knew the weapons were moved to Syria. If they knew the Russians did it. If they went on with the invasion as planned. If for two years they clung to the story that the weapons were in Iraq despite knowing the Russians moved them to Syria. If they chose for two years now to ignore the threat of the WMD's in Syria... If all these things were true and the government told us the message that they did... then they told a disgusting lie. The lies they did tell. Medicare, aluminum tubes, etc. were mostly small potato lies... possibly even difference of opinion between intelligence community lies... if they knew conclusively that Russia took the weapons into Syria and did not tell us and furthermore told us that the weapons were still in Iraq... that's a very big lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by gstahl Administrations answers on the explosives (links on the bottom)... ANSWER #1 – THEY WERE GONE WHEN WE GOT THERE: Administration spokesman Dan Senor said on CNN that "there's a very high probability that those weapons weren't even there before the war." All the evidence, however, suggests the opposite. In an Oct. 25 AP story, a Pentagon official said, "US-led coalition troops had searched Al Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact." According to Today's New York Times, after U.S. troops came through, Iraqis on the scene in Al Qaqaa "described an orgy of theft" as the sensitive military site was picked clean by looters. Iraq's top science official, Mohammed al-Sharaa, confirmed these reports, saying, "It is impossible that these materials could have been taken from this site before the regime's fall. The officials that were inside this facility (Al Qaqaa) beforehand confirm that not even a shred of paper left it before the fall." ANSWER #2 – WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT: White House in some cases has simply plead ignorance. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "We were informed on October 15th. Condi Rice was informed days after that. This is all in the last, what, 10 days now." What they're not talking about: The New York Times reported that Iraqi officials say they warned Paul Bremer, the American head of the occupation authority, that Al Qaqaa had probably been looted in May 2004, six months ago. ANSWER #3 – WE'VE SECURED LOTS OF OTHER MUNITIONS: White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan tried to minimize the importance of the 380 tons of explosives that went missing, saying, "400,000 tons of munitions have been seized or destroyed by coalition forces." But McClellan is comparing apples to oranges. The 400,000 tons the White House cites refers to munitions – including guns and ammunition. Pound for pound, the 380 tons of explosives are much, much more powerful. For example, "the bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound of the same type of material." ANSWER #4 – THE NBC STORY: The Bush campaign spun an NBC News story in an attempt to bolster its answer, charging, "NBC Nightly News later reported that on April 10, 2003, one day after Iraq was liberated, US troops entered Al Qaqaa and did not find the explosives." NBC News, however, resisted that characterization. What the network actually said: "Military officials tell NBC News that on April 10, 2003, when the Second Brigade of the 101st Airborne entered the Al Qaqaa weapons facility, south of Baghdad, that those troops were actually on their way to Baghdad, that they were not actively involved in the search for any weapons, including the high explosives, HMX and RDX...And because the Al Qaqaa facility is so huge, it's not clear that those troops from the 101st were actually anywhere near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX." So, the administration did not lie, the troops really did not find any HMX or RDX but they seem to not have been looking either (the full truth). ADMINISTRATION WAS WARNED: In a blistering op-ed in the Boston Globe, former Ambassador Peter Galbraith describes the widespread looting of sensitive materials in Iraq as a "preventable disaster." Iraq's sensitive material was stored in only a few known locations, all of which were closely monitored by the international community. U.S. troops, however, were not given any relevant intelligence about these sites from the White House and there was never a plan in place to secure them after the invasion. According to Lt. Col. Fred Wellman, spokesman for one of the first units to reach Al Qaqaa, "orders were not given from higher to search or to secure the facility or to search for [explosives]." Iraqi witnesses to looting at Al Qaqaa also say Al Qaqaa "employees asked the Americans to protect the site but were told this was not the soldiers' responsibility." Links to back up the above information... CNN story Under seal since 1991 Looting in 2003 Iraqi's deny explosives disappeared before the war Whitehouse just found out Bremer told Lots of munitions destroyed Troops did not search for HMX and RDX Preventable No orders to search Are we to understand that you are taking the word of biased media, Corrupt IAEA officials with a grudge, and comments from people who WERE NOT THERE, over Eye witness accounts from our soldiers and our top military and pentagon officials? Fairly telling of your mind set, and it's appalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteve Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 World War III is coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by steveskins World War III is coming. Right after Civil War II is fought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by offiss Syria is probably the next target, they have been to helpful to the wrong people, and Russia right now is trying to defuse a possible situation with us with it's endorcement of Bush. So helping an enemy of the United States is ok as long as you back the incumbent in an election year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Right after Civil War II is fought. There won't be a true civil war because one side lacks the backbone needed to stand behind their convictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by skin-n-vegas There won't be a true civil war because one side lacks the backbone needed to stand behind their convictions. There won't be a civil war because the differences between Bush and Kerry really aren't all that huge. I certainly wouldn't support violence over different tax plans. It would take something dramatic, like a power grab and the elimination of democracy, to spark a civil war. Also in case you haven't read yoru history, when the left fights the right because conditions have gotten that bad.....it's never a pretty fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Is my time schedule off some how? If the time scehdule from the article is correct, is that okay with the Bush backers? Does nobody see any problems with our planning? Maybe Russia took them. Maybe Syria has them. Maybe some terrorist organization has them. That's not my issue. My issue is why didn't we even look to see if they were there until a month latter? Why did we not watch the area for days after defeating the enemy in the region? Who has them now is important, but not from the standpoint of assessing the planning. Assessing the planning means assessing why we don't know where they are. Is there stuff we should have done to better know if the area had the suspected explosives? Why didn't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.