The Iraq / war on terror thread

[SLCPUNK]

Dont put words into my mouth, I never said the rest of the world was stupid.? I just dont have the "presumption" that the US is always wrong or doing evil things as you do.? Sure there are interest groups, but a President is not going to take a country to war to add to his millions or dollars and make money for his friends.? I know you hate Bush and think he is an evil man, but there is nothing that you can show that can prove this or anything that would make one think he had such a motivation.

I'm sorry, you said ignorant...."This is because much of the world is ignorant"

I don't think he is evil. I think he is stupid and stubborn, and wrong.

Of course he is listening to special interest groups, they all are.

[axls_locomotive]

The BBC is just as bad as the New York Times. 

not true, the BBC is subject to scrutiny by independent panels and complaints made by the public, they have to show themselves as near neutral as possible of they face a backlash by the public who fund them...i certainly dont think the New York Times is subject to such procedures nor any other media outlet in the USA

[loretian]

not true, the BBC is subject to scrutiny by independent panels and complaints made by the public, they have to show themselves as near neutral as possible of they face a backlash by the public who fund them...i certainly dont think the New York Times is subject to such procedures nor any other media outlet in the USA

Well, that's pretty cool.  I guess I really don't know that much about the BBC, I've just noticed that pretty much every article I've read from them about Blair and Bush casts them both in a bad light.  I don't read it often enough to really make a sound judgement, though.

[SLCPUNK]

The BBC is just as bad as the New York Times.?

not true, the BBC is subject to scrutiny by independent panels and complaints made by the public, they have to show themselves as near neutral as possible of they face a backlash by the public who fund them...i certainly dont think the New York Times is subject to such procedures nor any other media outlet in the USA

We should have more of that here....that would be nice.

Here, the media controls the people.....

[GnRNightrain]

The BBC is just as bad as the New York Times.?

not true, the BBC is subject to scrutiny by independent panels and complaints made by the public, they have to show themselves as near neutral as possible of they face a backlash by the public who fund them...i certainly dont think the New York Times is subject to such procedures nor any other media outlet in the USA

We should have more of that here....that would be nice.

Here, the media controls the people.....

Luckily sometimes Rather and some of the other liberals get caught on trying to deliberately misinform.

[SLCPUNK]

The BBC is just as bad as the New York Times.?

not true, the BBC is subject to scrutiny by independent panels and complaints made by the public, they have to show themselves as near neutral as possible of they face a backlash by the public who fund them...i certainly dont think the New York Times is subject to such procedures nor any other media outlet in the USA

We should have more of that here....that would be nice.

Here, the media controls the people.....

Luckily sometimes Rather and some of the other liberals get caught on trying to deliberately misinform.

I heard Fox was trying to recruit him......

[GnRNightrain]

The BBC is just as bad as the New York Times.?

not true, the BBC is subject to scrutiny by independent panels and complaints made by the public, they have to show themselves as near neutral as possible of they face a backlash by the public who fund them...i certainly dont think the New York Times is subject to such procedures nor any other media outlet in the USA

We should have more of that here....that would be nice.

Here, the media controls the people.....

Luckily sometimes Rather and some of the other liberals get caught on trying to deliberately misinform.

No there are only fascists on Fox.  Like O'Reilly.  Right SLC?

I heard Fox was trying to recruit him......

[Will]

VIENNA (Reuters) - Hundreds of tons of explosives are missing from a site near Baghdad that was part of Saddam Hussein's dismantled nuclear arms program but never secured by the U.S. military, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Monday.

The missing 377 tons of high explosives, monitored by inspectors from the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency until the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, could potentially be used to make a detonator for a nuclear bomb or in conventional weapons as well as in a variety of other military and civilian uses, arms experts said.

Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology informed the IAEA two weeks ago that the explosives had been "lost after April 9, 2003, through the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security," the watchdog agency told the 15-nation U.N. Security Council.

The New York Times, which broke the story on Monday, said arms experts feared the most immediate use of the explosives would be to attack U.S. or Iraqi forces, which have come under increasing fire ahead of Iraq's elections due in January.

Diplomats at the IAEA warned that materials useful in making nuclear bombs could also easily be shipped out of Iraq and sold to countries like neighbor Iran or terrorist groups.

The IAEA has been barred from most of Iraq since the war and has watched from afar as the former nuclear sites it once monitored have been stripped by looters.

Vienna diplomats said the IAEA had cautioned the United States about the danger of the explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told U.S. officials about the need to keep them secured.

U.S. presidential challenger John Kerry accused President Bush of committing a massive blunder in failing to safeguard the explosives.

KERRY SEES 'GREAT BLUNDER'

"This is one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the greatest blunders of this administration, and the incredible incompetence of this president and this administration has put our troops at risk and this country at greater risk," Kerry told supporters in Dover, New Hampshire.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Danforth said the Bush administration was investigating the matter.

"Obviously this is a serious matter. We are looking into it," he said.
ElBaradei informed Washington of the seriousness of the matter on Oct. 15, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said in Vienna. Bush was informed days later, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.

Prior to the war, 215 tons of HMX explosives had been sealed and tagged with the IAEA emblem while stored at Iraq's sprawling Al Qaqaa military facility. Some 156 tons of RDX and 6.4 tons of PETN were also stored at the Al Qaqaa site and monitored by the IAEA.

The U.N. agency last verified the presence and amounts of the three types of explosive at Al Qaqaa in January 2003, ElBaradei told the Security Council.

Iraq was allowed to keep some explosives for civilian use after the IAEA completed its dismantling of Saddam's covert nuclear weapons program after the 1991 Gulf war.

A Western diplomat close to the IAEA, who declined to be identified, said it was hard to understand why the U.S. military had failed to secure the facility.

"This was a very well known site. If you could have picked a few sites that you would have to secure then ... Al Qaqaa would certainly be one of the main ones," the diplomat said.

At the Pentagon, a U.S. defense official said Al Qaqaa was "well known as a storage depot for conventional explosives" but doubted U.S. forces in Iraq made it "a high-priority location" for providing security.

The missing explosives were not weapons of mass destruction, The official said, adding that U.S. forces gave higher priority to suspected WMD sites after the invasion. No WMD were found, however.

"You just can't leave a guard force at all these places you find. If you leave a squad at all 10,000 places that are known so far, then there's 50,000 (troops) out of action," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. (Additional reporting by Javier E. David in New York, Patricia Wilson in Dover, N.H., Will Dunham at the Pentagon in Washington and Irwin Arieff at the United Nations in New York)

Source: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=T41KBGNVVV3X4CRBAEZSFEY?type=topNews&storyID=6603680

[SLCPUNK]

I saw this earlier today.

 I am not suprised.

[GnRNightrain]

No excuse for that.

[loretian]

OK.

Here we go.

The UN is political, and anti-US.  The media is liberal, and anti-Bush.

Here is yet one more piece of evidence to support the above.

The explosives were missing before the US troops even arrived in Iraq.  The UN waited until now to announce.  The networks knew about it long ago.  They waited until NOW.  CBS wanted to wait until Oct. 31st (right before the election) to report it.

Come on...  How much more evidence is it gonna take for you guys?  You're in denial.   

http://www.drudgereport.com/nbcw.htm

[Will]

And yet you give a link to the drudgereport.com! lol Good one!

And loretian, the point of the article is not really to know if the media is liberal or the UN is "anti-US"...the point is to report that a bunch of explosives are missing and that could be a big problem.

ElBaradei informed Washington of the seriousness of the matter on Oct. 15, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said in Vienna. Bush was informed days later, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.

No offense but Oct. 15 doesn't sound like "a long time ago" to me...and we don't know when the information leaked. Washington learned about that on Oct. 15, Bush himself was informed days later so it can't be that "long ago".

[loretian]

And yet you give a link to the drudgereport.com! lol Good one!

Can you show me something Drudge has inaccurately reported?  Cause that would make Drudge seem a lot less credible, but I'm not aware of any major errors drudge has made in his reporting, contrasted with all the "mistakes" CBS and the other networks have made.

And loretian, the point of the article is not really to know if the media is liberal or the UN is "anti-US"...the point is to report that a bunch of explosives are missing and that could be a big problem.

Well, I realize that, but it's supposed to reflect badly on Bush and his ability to handle Iraq.

ElBaradei informed Washington of the seriousness of the matter on Oct. 15, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said in Vienna. Bush was informed days later, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.

No offense but Oct. 15 doesn't sound like "a long time ago" to me...and we don't know when the information leaked. Washington learned about that on Oct. 15, Bush himself was informed days later so it can't be that "long ago".

An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.

According to NBCNEWS, the HMX and RDX explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.

...

Why is the U.N. nuclear agency suddenly warning now that insurgents in Iraq may have obtained nearly 400 tons of missing explosives -- in early 2003?

[Will]

Like I said, we're not on the same page here. You're looking for conspiracy...I'm looking for an explanation. I'd like to know what happened to those explosives, and I'm worried when and especially how we will see them again...

Just a few words about what you said: US troops supposedly found out in april 2003 right? So the US government knew about that since april 2003 (no way the army would not report such information to the high administration)...why didn't they say anything before now, if they did indeed know about that since april 2003? I don't have lots of respect for Bush but I don't think he would hide such info for a year and a half.

[loretian]

Like I said, we're not on the same page here. You're looking for conspiracy...I'm looking for an explanation. I'd like to know what happened to those explosives, and I'm worried when and especially how we will see them again...

Well, I'm not looking for a conspiracy, I'm pointing one out.? (I wouldn't use the word conspiracy, though)? ? The topic of the liberal media comes up often enough, and my point was that all these reports are more evidence of it.? It's been suggested by certain people that there is no evidence, and yet things like this happen all the time, and I feel obligated to point them out when they do.

Just a few words about what you said: US troops supposedly found out in april 2003 right? So the US government knew about that since april 2003 (no way the army would not report such information to the high administration)...why didn't they say anything before now, if they did indeed know about that since april 2003? I don't have lots of respect for Bush but I don't think he would hide such info for a year and a half.

I think you're missing the point.? You read the story about the missing explosives, and you were suprised and shocked, and are looking for answers - and rightly so - but this happened a long time ago.? The explosives have probably already been used.? ?

Elizabeth Jensen at the LOS ANGELES TIMES details on Tuesday how CBS NEWS and 60 MINUTES lost the story [which repackaged previously reported information on a large cache of explosives missing in Iraq, first published and broadcast in 2003].

It had already been reported.? THIS IS NOT NEWS.? This happened a long time ago, was re-reported, just now, in an effort to harm Bush.? To me, that's the most major part of the story, not the missing explosives.? ?

Will, I have to ask you this.  Does it not concern you how the media has handled this?  How CBS originally planned to air this story Oct. 31st, right before the election, even though it's nothing new?  Does it make you question the media at all, that maybe that haven't been as impartial and as fair as you might think they have been to Bush?  This whole thing seems like yet another major slap in the face of Bush, truth, and so-called journalist objectivism.

[Will]

In the link you gave, I see an opinion piece, which you basically paraphrased in your post:

[The source behind the NYT story first went to CBSNEWS' 60 MINUTES last Wednesday, but the beleaguered network wasn't able to get the piece on the air as fast as the newspaper could print. Executive producer Jeff Fager hoped to break the story during a high-impact election eve broadcast of 60 MINS on October 31.]

Looking at Drudge's political agenda, I'm sorry I gotta say I don't believe every he says/ "reports".


Jumping on the TIMES exclusive, Dem presidential candidate John Kerry blasted

Doesn't look "fair and balanced" to me.


Why is the U.N. nuclear agency suddenly warning now that insurgents in Iraq may have obtained nearly 400 tons of missing explosives -- in early 2003?

Thanks for your opinion, Matt.


Washington said themselves they're not sure when the explosives disappeared.

Powell: Facts of disappearance unclear
"I don't know that we know what happened to it or the exact disposition," he said. "And I'll wait for those looking into this to come up with the answer as to what was there, when it was discovered missing, and where it might be."

For those looking for the actual MSNBC article, here it is: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/


Where does your quote come from (especially the "which repackaged previously reported information on a large cache of explosives missing in Iraq, first published and broadcast in 2003")? Drudge again? It may have been reported before, but it's news to me...I didn't see anyone on the thread saying: "Oh yeah, I remember that story, from whenever..." The bottom line is that we still don't know what happened to those explosives.

[loretian]

In the link you gave, I see an opinion piece, which you basically paraphrased in your post:

[The source behind the NYT story first went to CBSNEWS' 60 MINUTES last Wednesday, but the beleaguered network wasn't able to get the piece on the air as fast as the newspaper could print. Executive producer Jeff Fager hoped to break the story during a high-impact election eve broadcast of 60 MINS on October 31.]

Looking at Drudge's political agenda, I'm sorry I gotta say I don't believe every he says/ "reports".

Heh.. well, I don't see anything there that's not factual.? Maybe "beleaguered network", but I think it's at least arguable that that's a fact, given all the shit the network has gone through lately.? What do you see there that's an opinion?

Jumping on the TIMES exclusive, Dem presidential candidate John Kerry blasted

Doesn't look "fair and balanced" to me.

What's not fair about that?? Kerry did blast them over that.? Do you object to the use of the word blasted?? It's used all the time in reporting, by Drudge and CNN and any other news outlet.? Come on, read some articles on CNN about Bush, they'll talk about him the same way.

Why is the U.N. nuclear agency suddenly warning now that insurgents in Iraq may have obtained nearly 400 tons of missing explosives -- in early 2003?

Thanks for your opinion, Matt.

That's an incredibly fair and relevant question to be asking.? If the tables were turned, I'd expect no less.

Washington said themselves they're not sure when the explosives disappeared.

Powell: Facts of disappearance unclear
"I don't know that we know what happened to it or the exact disposition," he said. "And I'll wait for those looking into this to come up with the answer as to what was there, when it was discovered missing, and where it might be."

For those looking for the actual MSNBC article, here it is: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

Yes, we don't know exaclty when, or why, but we do know it happened BEFORE the US entered Iraq.

I feel like you're missing my point.? ?OK, so all this stuff happened way back whenever, it was/is a problem, but all the reports until recently made it sound like this just happened, and happened under Bush's watch.? It didn't.

Furthermore, the timing of this is incredibly suspect.? There's no reason for this report to be rereported just now, other than to hurt Bush.? Seriously, can you give me a reason why the UN would suddenly bring this up now?? Maybe I missed something, and if that's the case, please point it out to me, but I didn't see anything.

Where does your quote come from (especially the "which repackaged previously reported information on a large cache of explosives missing in Iraq, first published and broadcast in 2003")? Drudge again? It may have been reported before, but it's news to me...I didn't see anyone on the thread saying: "Oh yeah, I remember that story, from whenever..." The bottom line is that we still don't know what happened to those explosives.

http://www.drudgereport.com/nbcw6.htm

Yeah, I know you don't respect Drudge - but, if you can just look at the facts, and ignore what you consider to be Drudge's opinion, then think about it, I think you'll see what I'm saying.

As far as Drudge goes, I really think you're overreacting to the words he's using.? This is the kind of shit I read every day in almost every major news source when talking about Bush.? And, aside from the question he posed, which again, was incredibly fair and relevant, I didn't see anything that was an opinion and not a fact, besides the one I noted above.

[Will]

I really don't wanna to argue with you about our POV concerning the media because we're thinking opposite and that won't change. Do you have another source besides Drudge stating that info was already revealed a "long time ago"? I am curious because honestly it was news to me. As far as hurting Bush goes, what are you gonna say when he gets re-elected? "I guess the liberal media conspiracy didn't work!" ?

We both have different points about that. I don't see a big deal in who/how/when the story breaks/broke. What worries me is the use/location of those explosives. To me this is still the bottom line. And I still don't see the U.N conspiracy since this is Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology that informed the IAEA two weeks ago that the explosives had been "lost after April 9, 2003, through the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security."

[loretian]

I really don't wanna to argue with you about our POV concerning the media because we're thinking opposite and that won't change.

Fair enough, but will any amount of facts showing a liberal bias in the media change your opinion?

Do you have another source besides Drudge stating that info was already revealed a "long time ago"?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.explosives/index.html

I am curious because honestly it was news to me. As far as hurting Bush goes, what are you gonna say when he gets re-elected? "I guess the liberal media conspiracy didn't work!" ?

Do you think it's possible that there is actual a reason that you knew about the first story (the explosives missing), but not the second (they were actually missing a long time ago).  Why is it that the first bit of news, which is damaging to Bush, gets out, but the second bit is harder to find?

When he gets re-elected, I'm gonna crack a beer, smile, and laugh knowingly, that America still on it's path of greatness, and our country was founded with enough foresight that despite the attempts of the commies, nihilists, and depressed liberal musicians to blind us to truth, we still see through it all.   

We both have different points about that. I don't see a big deal in who/how/when the story breaks/broke. What worries me is the use/location of those explosives. To me this is still the bottom line.

To me, that isn't the bottom line.  Why?  Because it (apparently) happened a long time ago, and it was already news back then.  The real news to me is the fact that is is being brought up again, now, portraying Bush in a bad light (and giving ammo to Kerry), and misleading a large number of peope into believing that it was recently stolen (as I imagine most people who heard about this story believe).

If Drudge suddenly released a news report stating that the US has invaded Iraq and is toppling Saddam, would you consider that news?  No, probably not... what would be news is the reason he chose to release a news report like that.

And I still don't see the U.N conspiracy since this is Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology that informed the IAEA two weeks ago that the explosives had been "lost after April 9, 2003, through the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security."

I'm not exactly sure on this.  This seems to conflict with the details of later reports, so I think we have to wait a little and see how things pan out.

[gnrvrrule]

I don't have time to debate this thread, but I did not even realize that the weapons had been missing for that long until now.? The news made it sound like they recently went missing.? Even CNN is reporting this.  Personally, I was pissed at Bush when the news first broke about the weapons missing.  But now that this comes out, it switches my attention to what seems like another U.N. problem and perhaps more bias from the media.