Oct 25 2004
Yet Another Iraq Blunder…
Well at least we kep the oil ministry safe and secure after troops entered Bahgdad…
350 tons of high grade explosives are unaccounted for almost a year and a half after the Iraq invasion because they weren’t secured by US forces. Even worse, the Pentagon pressured the Iraqi government and the CPA not to report the missing explosives to the IAEA. Choice quote from the man who broke the story:
“This is the stuff the bad guys have been using to kill our troops, so you can’t ignore the political implications of this, and you would be correct to suspect that politics, or the fear of politics, played a major role in delaying the release of this information.”
Nothing says ’support our troops’ like trying to sweep something like this under the rug for political purposes.
This is the third time that you have reported lies on your weblog. I can see a couple times being inaccurate due to many reasons, but this is now becoming a trend. Do you actually care about the truth? You really should investigate the reports BEFORE you post them on your weblog.
“Report: Explosives already gone when U.S. troops arrived”
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.explosives/index.html
You are so blinded by your distain for W that you are not seeing (looking for) the truth.
Where do you get your news? I’m genuinely interested. I want to know why you get mislead so much. I’m wondering if it’s the media outlet you choose or if it’s just selective reading.
Looks as if you’re the one who’s being mislead. Take off your rose-colored glasses and read your quoted article again. First of all, your aforementioned CNN article truly isn’t conclusive, now is it? With a whopping headline like: “Report: Explosives could not be found when U.S. troops arrived.”
I, as a reader need more information. Like, when the troops arrived where? In Baghdad? In Tikrit? In the Gulf of Mexico? In Iraq itself? Not to mention, the weapons inspectors left in the month of March, and if I’m not mistaken, didn’t the war “begin” in the month of March? Don’t call me a rocket scientist, but we must have had troops in Iraq in March in order for the war to begin in March, right? (hmmmm, scratching my head in thought).
This quote in your CNN article seems to shed an interesting light on the subject:
“We, from the very beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, did everything we could to secure arms caches throughout the country,” Ereli said. “But given the number of arms and the number of caches and the extent of militarization of Iraq, it was impossible to provide 100 percent security for 100 percent of the sites, quite frankly.”
It seems as if the real issue is that we couldn’t really be everywhere at once…and as luck would have it, one of the places that we just couldn’t be was the Al Qaqaa storage facility.
Laughable reply
Yeah Boy,
Are you able to make opposing points without attacking anyone? I’m genuinely interested.
Talk about being misled. Posting a link to a quote from a State department offician in a CNN story which came from an NBC news crew via Matt Drudge that directly contradicts what the Pentagon said yesterday. Is that all it takes for you to believe? How hard did you dig into this story, beyond CNN.com?
Once again, great misdirection by the administration. The Pentagon pressures the Iraqi provisional government to keep quiet, and here we are talking about what an NBC news crew - who must obviously have been trained in high grade explosives to concur that there were no explosives there - did or didn’t see.
Yeah, please keep it civil and respectable here. It also helps to actually make constructive points and replies instead of just responding with things like ‘laughable’.
I mean, thats just pure disrespect both for the person you’re responding to and the level of intelligence I’m sure you have.
mwarden - sorry to anybody that was offended. I said “laughable reply” because the answers to her questions are in the article … I just thought the “read the article” comment from her was laughable … no ill intent.
My whole point here is that the original story from CBS/NY Times is inaccurate and we shouldn’t blindly trust the media. I know Dan pretty well and it bothers me that he isn’t acting like I know him. He doesn’t just blindly trust new/media - I’ve known him to question pretty much everything - UNLESS it’s a bash on Bush. I am just frustrated by that. :(
I just get frustrated when the same type of stuff happens repeatedly … inaccurate news misleads citizens who don’t/can’t look into the truth.
Here are the facts: There were munitions there before the war; by the time our troops got there they were gone.
Yeah, please keep it civil and respectable here
I never mean to offend people on your weblog. My passion gets in the way a bit, but I’m not trying to be disrespectful in any way - please understand that. I personally like all of you and respect you immensely (the people I know anyway). :)
Well that’s exactly my point: The fact is not that the muntions were gone by the time we got there. That’s simply what an NBC news crew says and CNN is reporting.
So the article clearly states the troops arrived at Al Qaqaa on April 10th and discovered the munitions were missing. My bad for missing that. But, I don’t see how we were truly doing everything we could to secure arms from the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom? If we had been doing everything to secure the arms from the beginning of the war, the missing munitions wouldn’t even be an issue.
I don’t see how we were truly doing everything we could to secure arms from the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom?
What are we doing wrong? We have destroyed and are scheduled to destroy almost 500 tons of munitions … we are doing something right.
If we had been doing everything to secure the arms from the beginning of the war, the missing munitions wouldn’t even be an issue.
We did do everything we could. As soon as we got to the site where these munitions were (at one time), we secured the area and the rest of the inventory inside this building. How could we have secured it before then?
That’s simply what an NBC news crew says and CNN is reporting.
That’s MY point. You don’t trust something just because an NBC news crew guy says something, but you trust something that a CBS “news guy” says?
Here is how I see your logic:
If the story you read is pro-Bush, you don’t believe it because “That’s simply what an NBC news crew says and CNN is reporting”
*BUT*
If the story is anti-Bush it’s on the front page of your weblog and you trust “simply what the CBS news crew and NY Times is reporting”
That’s all I’ve been trying to point out from the beginning (and on some of your previous posts).
350 tons of the most powerful non-nuclear explosives doesn’t equal 350-500 tons of regular munitions or ordnance. A few pounds of this stuff packed in a soda can with nails it whats been killing our troops for the last year and a half in the form of road side bombs or “IEDs”. A single pound of this explosive took out Pan Am flight 103 over Scotland in 1988.
So comparing tons of regular munitions or other ordnance - which includes vehicles, delivery mechanisms, weapon maintenance supplies, and ammunition - to this explosive is really an apples to oranges comparison.
Simply basing the entire argument on ‘Well shucks, we didn’t get there in time” isn’t holding water, especially when a Pentagon official says exactly the opposite:
FWIW, I simply posted the link to the CBS story because that was the first major news site to have it. Me ‘believing’ a story has nothing to do with it being anti-Bush or pro-Bush.
Saying that I don’t believe something in this case has nothing to do with it being ‘anti-Bush’. It has to do with the fact that an NBC news crew is hardly a reliable source in terms of explosives diagnostics.
CBS is reporting on the in-depth investigations of the Nelson Report & NY Times. CNN is reporting on an NBC story they picked up from Matt Drudge, based off what an NBC news crew may or may not have seen.
If one of those comes out anti or pro Bush, well that’s just the way it is. Personally, I’ll take a NY Times report over something from Matt Drudge anyday.
One member of the NBC news crew weighs in on MSNBC this morning:
*sigh*
speaking on condition of anonymity.
A trustworthy source for sure. Anonymous .. come on.
FWIW, I simply posted the link to the CBS story
Because CBS stories have proven to be accurate.
Me ‘believing’ a story has nothing to do with it being anti-Bush or pro-Bush.
Right.
It has to do with the fact that an NBC news crew is hardly a reliable source in terms of explosives diagnostics.
And CBS / NY Times is?
I see no difference between Drudge and NY Times. Seriously. They both have an agenda.
If one of those comes out anti or pro Bush, well that’s just the way it is
Maybe, but you’ll never post the pro-Bush story or retract the anti-Bush stories.
I’ll take a NY Times report over something from Matt Drudge anyday.
Why not try finding news from other sources than CBS, NY Times or Matt Drudge?
I’ll go away, but one of these days you’ll realize/admit that you want these types of stories to be true because you hate Bush.
Well the differnce between Drudge and the NY Times is that the Times is a world class respected newspaper (’The paper of record’) and Matt Drudge is a fanboy who is starving for attention and makes up ’stories’ to fill that need for attention.
I mean seriously.. CBS is the news organization who is innacruate, a worthless hack has just as much credibility as the NYT, and every other news org out there is just as bad??
Me ‘wanting’ something to be true is clearly the reason that I ‘hate’ Bush.. or something. I honestly don’t know where this is going.
I just want our President’s stories to be true, especially since peoples’ very lives are involved. Unfortunately, they seldom are, and that’s why he deserves the pink slip.
I can’t speak for Dan here, but I’ll be the first to admit: Yes, without question, no doubt about it–I DESPISE George Walker Bush! Any time I see something in the news that’s less than flattering to our brave cheerleader of a president, I jump all over it. Why? Because it’s refreshing when reporters show they have balls big enough to call our leadership on their bullshit! If, in fact, further review discredits any given news item, I am the first to step back and admit I made a mistake in believing something I read without thorough investigation of my own.
Does it hurt when the press pounces on something damaging to my side? Of course! Remember “Mistakes Were Made” from Slick Willy? Ouch! Do I wish it wouldn’t have been all over the papers? ABSOLUTELY NOT! It’s a beautiful thing when the man behind the curtain gets exposed, regardless of which side of the aisle he chooses to sit on.
Do I, personally, hope that embarrassing media stories about Bush turn out to be true?
Um, YES!!!
By the way, Daniel, I hate to go there, but let’s not forget about Jayson Blair just yet.
If we knew they were there at one point so well that we now notice that they are missing, we obviously had an opportunity to secure them one way or the other.
Exactly.
Just a question for Les and mwarden … how are we supposed to guard them when we weren’t even there yet? As soon as we got there we secured the area.
Besides, there is now evidence that the Russian government helped Iraq remove these explosives in the weeks leading to the war.
Yeah Boy,
It’s hard to know who to believe these days, but the State Department, the Pentagon, and the Russian government have all flatly denied Shaw’s assertions about Russian involvement. This is one of those situations where all we can do is argue hypothetically and wait until we get all the facts before we can jump at each other’s throats. :)
That being said, it just looks sloppy. We do know that weapons inspectors were there as late as mid-March, and whatever containers were there were still “sealed”, whatever the hell that means. The troops that came in April admitted that their inspection of the site was somewhat hurried. They were, after all, on a beeline for Baghdad. That in itself is kinda’ scary, don’t you think?
Honestly, I hope it turns out that we DID do everything right in trying to secure those weapons. It’s not like I’m rooting against our boys. As much as I detest this ridiculous war, I want at least a tiny bit of reassurance that our military leadership knows what they’re doing once in a while.
Stay tuned…
Proof the explosives were still there 9 days after the fall of Bahgdad..
Thoughts?
So today the Army unleashed the former commander of the Theater support ammuntion company in Iraq at the time and he states that he probably destroyed the explosives.
Here’s the thing: I know the guy and have worked with him before, and all he would say about his time in Iraq was the fact that he was always undermanned and shorthanded, and as a result, would have to send out two or three man teams to supervise the destruction of the hundreds of bunker site.
Furthermore, he was still headquartered way down in SE Iraq at this point, meaning he (as commander) was usually trying to catch up on paperwork at this point.
It doesn’t mean that he wasn’t telling the truth about being there when this stuff was destroyed. But since his company destroyed more than 1.2 million total tons of ammunition from across the southern half of the county, he might be a little confused about the details of what amounted to less than a hundredth of what was destroyed.
Also; in the press conference he may have seemed a little unsure and agitated. The thing is, he always talks like that
Jon, I thought that Major they threw to the press lions yesterday kind of looked like you!
Come on! I’m way thinner than that!