Explosive Times

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:14 am

If anyone doubts how partisan the press can be, Yesterdays article by the New York Times about the disappearance of 350 tons of H.E. material from Iraq should put the last suture in the craniums of those who mistakenly believe "If it's in print, it must be true".

For those who doubted Bush's statement last week about how Kerry's presidency will be based on headline news, they too should now have the cataracts removed from their vision. Too bad Kerry jumped on the Times story so quickly as today a NBC reporter imbedded with the 101st says the explosives were already missing when they got there to secure the site. So whats it going to be John, if you become president and al Reuters or al Bra-zeera prints a front page article, are you going to base your foreign or domestic policy on that article?

The really sad part is now how Kerrys "team" is trying to spin all this. Where's the "apology" demand from the press over this "mistake" in judgement by Kerry. The NYT is not even admitting it's mistake.
So why should we trust anything the press prints out?
And you wonder why Fox news is getting better and better ratings along with Limbaugh & Hannity.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:27 am

Well apparantly Kerry thinks we should have gone into Iraq sooner since the stuff was already gone when we got there!
The big test is, how long will the press let him get away with this lie? So far he's still spouting it in spite of the reality....must be nice to have the press carry your water for you.

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:04 pm

This is the wave of the future: Kerry jumping on what the "news" reports.

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:53 pm

http://www.johnkerry.com/video/102604_obligation.html

It's amazing how fast they can put a TV ad together.

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:09 pm

I don't think Kerry's handlers give two shakes that it's bogus. They have plausible deniability to lie because the NYT has run with it. I think the name of the game is get it out, hope to sway a few undecideds and then issue a half-hearted *oops* later.

This might help explain the press screw-up...

NY Times Blames False Explosives Story on Acid Reflux
by Scott Ott

(2004-10-26) -- An attorney for the The New York Times today blamed yesterday's false story--suggesting President George Bush lost 377 tons of Iraqi explosives--on "an attack of acid reflux."

The incident marks the second time in a week that a major performance was interrupted by the gastric disorder--the first being Ashlee Simpson's appearance on Saturday Night Live.

"Rather than criticize the Times for this embarassing episode," the unnamed attorney said, "Americans should express their sympathy because the venerable 'Gray Lady' suffers the ravages of acid reflux."

Meanwhile, the CBS News magazine '60 Minutes' plans to report Sunday night that the missing explosives may have been hidden underneath President Bush's suit jacket , creating the mysterious lump in the middle of his back during the first presidential debate.

"We would like to have all the facts before we report this," said a spokesman for CBS, "but then Matt Drudge will beat us to the punch. So, we're going for it. As Dan Rather once said, 'Courage means never having to say you're sorry'."

http://www.scrappleface.com/

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:11 pm

Don't believe Kerry just got this news yesterday! He even refrenced an unnamed "ammo dump that insurgents were stealing explosives from to use on our troops" in one of the debates.

This was an orchestrated effort between the New York Times, CBS and the forged document crew at 60 minutes, and Lochart of the Kerry campaign. Their October surprise has just been busted...well, except that there aren't any people with integrity in the mainstream press who will report it...yet.
We'll have to wait until the right wing talk radio types protest so much the real story has to come out in spite of the coalition of the corrupt.

You can find the details with links to supporting stories and some video at the Drudge Report.

EDIT: lol@Bash!

Of course I realize there really is no media bias cause Birdseye said so...plus John Kerry is going to sprinkle fairy dust on all the sick people and make us all safe. All we have to do is listen to his stories, close our eyes and believe and then we can fly with him to never never land!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:32 pm

Martin Luther King gave a famous speech called "I have a Dream". Replace Dream with Plan and you have Kerry at his finest.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:02 pm

bash wrote:I think the name of the game is get it out, hope to sway a few undecideds and then issue a half-hearted *oops* later.

Kind of like the Iraq war!

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:04 pm

Dude! Leave Dr.King out of this! Dr. King is a hero, Kerry is a pus infested blister on the ass of reality.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:11 pm

LOL, I actually really like that metaphor.

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:25 pm

Chipper, I think that would more accurately be *I Dreamed I Have A Plan.*

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:30 pm

Heh @ Bash

Will baby, ya Dr. King be a hero. You have to understand though that Kerry failed to be a hero in vietnam so now he has to shuck and jive in the shadow of a real hero in the hope some of it rubs off. Sorry John, thats not shoe polish you're trying to rub up against.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:30 pm

Good one Bash

To sleep: perchance to have a plan: ay, there's the rub.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:39 am

What's funny is the republican side is saying that 'the explosives could have been gone for a long time'. to me that makes no sense logically because if someone has that much explosives, wouldn't there be at least someone checking up on them, to tell someone else that they have degraded at least?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 7:41 am

There ws Ferno, the IAEA had put seals on the bunkers that had the explosives. When the 101st got to the site, no bunkers had seals. It looks like the explosives were taken out "PRIOR" to the troops getting there.
Now whats really funny is these explosives were on the UN's banned weapons list (hence the IAEA seals)of mass destruction. So why is no one reporting that here is a blaring instance that Iraq had WMD's?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:18 am

well if that's the case, why report it now? why not report it at the start?

Here's the thing: someone had to know the cache was there, then go back to check on it a few days later to discover that it's now gone. Because if it was gone in the first place, it probably wouldn't be reported at all.

Or maybe.. the story is nothing but a fabrication...

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:51 am

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/ ... osives.ap/

Hmmm...funny woodchip. I can't find anywhere that says explicity "the weapons were banned" Apparently, these are dual use explosives, did Saddam have reason to use them for good? Probably not. Hmmm...I wonder if this was one of the stockpiles that Rumsfeld publicly declared knowing the whereabouts and contents. I guess not...

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:04 pm

Ferno, the last time they were seen was before the war started. 3 different embedded reporters were there in the days just before Bagdad fell, one of them reported then and has reconfirmed last night that he spent 24 hours there and went with the marines he was with on a walk of the entire compound he reports that they saw no signs of the seals the U.N. inspectors put on the doors, he mentioned seeing the remains of the kind of wires the seals are installed with and other locks on the doors but no seals.

Funny how the other two reporters, the two who didn't walk around the entire compound, report they can't say for certain if the seals were still there or not and these are the two reporters that the Kerry campain and the mainstream media quote when anyone challenges the implication that the explosives were still there. The one reporter who actually spent the time to walk the complex and looked at the doors is conveniently ignored!

One would have to be really stupid to play along with Kerry on this one...of course he knows his supporters well so I guess he's doing fine by them.
*********************

Zuruck, the U.S. members of the U.N. weapons inspector team suggested these type of explosives be destroyed for the very reason you mention, the dual use capability, in fact the very explosives we're talking about were exempted from destruction by the U.N.

So in a country the size of California with literally half a million tons of explosives spread out and hidden in thousands of locations, in the first few weeks of a full on invasion Bush apparantly should have called up the generals and said "Hey, I know you're busy but don't forget to grab that little pile (less than 1 percent of the total found so far) of high explosives in that one ammo dump south of Bagdad because that's the one pile of weapons that matters to the democrats and their ignorant voters!"

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:23 pm

Here you go apparantly the NY Times has forgotton their own reports on this subject and what they thought had happened to the explosives before they realized the story could be re-written and used to scare up some votes for Kerry.

Don't forget, this story was supposed to come out this Sunday night on 60 Minutes so there wouldn't be time to go back and find the truth about it.
Matt Drudge may have just single handedly saved us from a Pres. Kerry! Between this and his exposure of ABC's holding the terrorist warning film he just may have done it.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:28 pm

Ferno, if memory serves, the UN did go back to check in May of 2003 to check on them and discovered them missing. So all of this is better questioned by asking, "Why bring it up now"

Zuruck, as I understand it, one of the two types of missing explosives are used to to trigger a nuclear weapon. Perhaps this is why the UN had seals on them.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 8:34 pm

STAND BY! Bill Gertz via Washington times will report Russians aided in spiriting missing explosives out of Iraq into Syria. Will make for interesting reading. If true the real October surprise will be tomorrow and Kerry will be shown for the reactionary ass that he is.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 8:38 pm

Go to Drudge for a prelimminary report:

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 8:43 pm

woodchip wrote:If true the real October surprise will be tomorrow and Kerry will be shown for the reactionary *** that he is.

Not unless the mainstream press suddenly finds some integrity, if they had any Kerry would have already been asked a number of questions about similar lies he's been campaigning on. Expect them to get curious about it next Wednesday or later.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:22 am

well if what you say is true woody.. then yea. why bring it up now?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:05 am

"A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief," Bush told supporters Wednesday. "The senator is denigrating the action of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts"

Kinda like how this whole war started huh?

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:32 pm

Do you guys still believe the NYT article was erroneous?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:14 am

It certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility Jeff.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:03 am

Vander, after Jason Blair, one has to question if the greay lady is senile. If a newspaper of the NYT's stature reports news based on supposition with the clear intent of aiding one member in a political race, then one can only question all their news as being slanted to help a certain party and thus unreliable. If they want to write editorials in aide of a certain candidate, fine and dandy. Just don't report news in a like manner.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:56 am

Vander wrote:Do you guys still believe the NYT article was erroneous?

Their latest video apparantly doesn't show the stuff the initial report was about so it does nothing to back up the story that Kerry has been spinning.

I beleieve all their research, including previous reporting they had done on the subject, would have lead even a third grade social studies student to conclude that, whatever happened to the explosives, it must have happened *before* the troops ever got there!

Now knowing that do you still believe they were breaking a *new* story about U.S. troops allowing the enemy to get 380 tons of explosives onto 38 ten ton trucks and drive them out of there past convoys of U.S. armed forces who were the only traffic on those surrounding roads for months?
Or maybe you think they let 10,133 men sneak in there and carry out 75 pound packs of the stuff on their backs like a 16 mile long chain of worker ants on their way back to the anthill?

And does the fact that so far no one has found evidence of those types of explosives being used on our troops as candidate Kerry claims has happened....these explosives apparantly have a very high melting point and aren't easily detonated like dynomite,TNT or even C4.

Do you think the co-ordination between the NY Times and CBS on when to release the unsubstantiated story to time it as a last minute attack...too late to research and refute it is just the way things are done with regular news reports?

Do you think it's odd that the IAEA flack sent out the letter to advise us of the missing explosives when they had already sent basically the same notification a year previously when the stuff was initially discovered to be missing from the bunkers?
Do you think the motive of resending the letter now might be political payback by a man who is under extreme pressure by the Bush for not doing his job in the arena of monitoring international nuclear proliferation ie; Libya...Iran..Korea?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 10:23 am

damn you're an idiot will.

on a side note, i wasn't sure where to post this link about the whole halliburton crap, so i'll put it here...i think it's funny. and i'm not surprised.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... objections

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:16 am

Wills an idiot for going point by point thru the fallacies of the NYT reporting? Thats your refutation?
Hahahahahahaha.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:29 am

"Their latest video apparantly doesn't show the stuff the initial report"

I confess, I never read the original NYT story. I still don't know what facts that NYT story puts forward. What I do know, is that 300+ tons of high explosives are apparently missing or unaccounted for, and this happened After we assumed control. Isn't that the gist of the story?

That it was under IAEA seal leads me to believe that this stuff could have been used in weapons of mass destruction program related activities. Isn't this the kind of stuff we had to rush in to Iraq to secure?

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:25 pm

The Times piece was speculative and inconclusive. It remains that way. The pivotal phrase is *unaccounted for*. The fact that none have been used against coalition troops in the 18 months or so that we've been there leads me to believe that the Pentagon's records keeping leaves something to be desired. All in all, a minor story. That it appeared as the lead story of the NYT a week prior to the election is suspect but I doubt it has any influence on the election.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:20 pm

So woody, how about the new apples telling you that there is evidence that, as vander said, the explosives dissapeared after our arrival?

Damn, your rant sounds silly now

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:25 pm

No one can say, in spite of all their attempts to imply otherwise, that they know where these munitions were after January but lets try a little exercize in logic. I'll play along with the notion that the stuff was there when we invaded.
If it was there then please consider the logistics of removing it considering the time frame it would have to have been looted!

It is beyond unlikely...it is as close to *impossible* as a mortal can get for that ammount of munitions to have been removed by *anyone* without the approval of the U.S. military when you consider the ammount of U.S. forces in the area 24/7 for the whole time period.

Consider the actual mass of the munitions and what it would take to move it! The numbers and scenario I outlined in my post above are not exagerations.
The area in question was swarming, the roads literally bumper to bumper at times, filled with thousands of troops moving toward Bagdad as well as many patrols looking for Iraqi resistance 24/7.

Anything is possible, including Santa Claus, but what is probable should be a minimum requirement for a story like this.
At the time of Kerry's acusations and the N.Y. Times article it would have been laughable to say or write something implying what they did.
So, is the N.Y. Times a full fledged comedy rag and Kerry just doing bad stand up comedy? Or are they both playing politics?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 12:38 am

that's what I was thinkin Birds.. because in order to know something is gone you have to know it was there to begin with.

Elementary.