Sponsoring this...


Consume this...

Supplement with this...

Polling this...

Legalize this...




Watch this...



  • Jihadwatch_1

Advocate this...

Support this...

Blog Widget by LinkWithin

« More slaughtering of this... | Main | The president weighs in on this... »

October 28, 2004

Comments

Thomas Galvin

Isn't the correct response, for lack of better words, too complicated to synthesize in such a short amount of time in order to refute this hysterical and desperate presidential candidate?

Then again, won't Kerry's charges also be too complicated to explain simply in the final days as well?

Peter

Had they been able to hold off and spring this story on Sunday it would have been too late to refute it. As it is, the American people have time to realise that it doesn't pass the common sense test.
Here is why...
1. The search for WMD was a Big Deal. Everyone, from the slick sleeved Private on his first assignment to the Division Commanders knew that the guy (and now gal) who actually found WMD in Iraq would get a HUGE attaboy in his service jacket, probably a promotion and something shiney to wear, too.
2. Third ID fought their way in and gave the place a quick and dirty look-see. They turned over a bunch of suspicious vials of white powder, if they noticed those they would have noticed IAEA seals on bunkers.
3. A week later 101st Airborne was on site for a day, troops were not specifically ordered to search but, on their own hook they looked around. For one thing they wanted to know if there were some bad guys hiding, for another, see reason #1.
4. Troops reported the tracks of big trucks in dried mud there. There had been no rain in the area since before our units got there.
5. The amounts were too large to carry off in a Toyota. There is simply no way that the number of vehicles required to carry that stuff away would have been able to move on the road networks after we got there. Our convoys owned the roads, we had checkpoints everywhere, both for security and for traffic control. Unless one has worn Uncle's suit it is durned near impossible to visualise the incredible amount of 'stuff' a modern military formation uses and it all comes by truck. Zillions of trucks. Each crossroads has a checkpoint, both to keep the trucks headed in the right direction and for security.
There is simply no way that the bad guys could have carried off hundreds of tons of explosives on that road network.
People who care, one way or the other about this 'issue' will probably ask a veteran. Doesn't really matter if it's a combat veteran, how many decades since that vet hung up the jock, it's going to be the same answer. Anyone who's been in the Big Green Machine, or the Big Blue Machines sees the problems with the story as told by al-Qerri and al-CBS.

Drew

Who needs trucks? I saw David Kay on CNN suggesting it was done by donkey cart! Unreal. Even if a donkey cart can haul 500lbs, which I doubt, that's over 1500 trips. One would think there wouldn't be tire tracks, but a path paved with horse manure. (I'm supplying a very easy set-up for the next commentor)

Moze

[People who care, one way or the other about this 'issue' will probably ask a veteran. Doesn't really matter if it's a combat veteran, how many decades since that vet hung up the jock, it's going to be the same answer.]

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Peter.

I have and will again broach this subject with a veteran, so long as his name isn't John Kerry.

Cheers,

Wombat

[quote] I have and will again broach this subject with a veteran, so long as his name isn't John Kerry.

John Kerry is not a veteran; he always was and is a commie puppet.

Have you all forgotten how Kerry flew to Nicaragua on his own bat with no support from the senate undermining a Ragen administration mandate. humm well 2 days after his meeting with a certain leader down there in Nicaragua, the Nicaraguan leader flew to the soviet union and received massive commie funding. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Ok who can name the Nicaraguan leader Kerry met with?

ssg tm

its commentary like this that has me addicted to 'Drink This'...we have lame internet bandwidth over here and I've been trying to research these explosives and get dinged with 'connection timed out...

And here's the scoop answering a lot of question in one link - Thanks All....for all the commentaries on a variety of important topics...

rickiniraq

hey wombat,that wouldn't be daniel ortega would it?
i've been to the site in question (9 may 04)and it's one big slum around there,with beacoup fedayeen saddam fighters in the area.it's easy to see any large amount of material disappearing if you're not hauling it more than a few kilometers to some "friendly"areas to store it and distribute it at your leisure in smaller amounts.
even the most primitive third world terrorists can find out when our satellites are making a pass,and it ain't exactly like saddam didn't have plenty of heads up knowing we were coming.shell games folks,remember the lack of results in gw 1 with the scuds?who was kerry leeching off of in '91?
kerry needs to let it go and let our men and women in uniform do their jiobs with out the leash around their necks

John Anderson

No seals seen, if they were there they could be removed and put back with little more than a screwdriver, seals supposedly seen on barrels (OK, has anyone SEEN that video?) but I think at most they were UN seals allowing import of explosives until the video is on the web...
Come on, now.
.
10.25.2004 ?RDX never at alQQ? And never sealed?
. text http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1227830.htm
. audio Real player http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200410/r34182_85029.ram
. audio WIndows player http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200410/r34182_85034.asx
.
IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming interview on ABC (Australia) - "IAEA inspectors visited Al-Mahaweel on Jan. 15, 2003, and verified the RDX inventory by weighing sampling," Fleming said. She said the RDX at Al-Mahaweel was NOT UNDER SEAL [emphasis added - JSA] but was subject to IAEA monitoring."
.
Al-Mahaweel?
"The bulk of the RDX was stored at another site that was under Al Qaqaa's jurisdiction," IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said.
She says that the report seen by ABC only covers the Al Qaqaa site itself.
The second site, Al Mahaweel, is roughly 45 kilometres from Al Qaqaa.
.
Well, so much for about 140 of the 372 tons? Or what?
.
10.29.2004 3ID says "I did not see any IAEA seals at any of the locations we went into," Maj. Austin Pearson said.
Search google for "Mahaweel" - http://www.dailyherald.com/news_story.asp?intid=38289156 is the only one in the US to have this?
. What video? pics of a seal on the ABC/KSTP are of a "sample" seal, not from the video! http://instapundit.com/archives/018748.php

The comments to this entry are closed.

Reciprocate this...

Bearing this...


  • Bfllogo

Latest additions to this...


Rolling this...