Posted on 10/24/2004 7:21:04 PM PDT by icecold
Edited on 10/25/2004 6:42:02 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Yes, but it's not the super-killing device that DU was waxing panic about the other day, and the NYT's even put into print as "SUPER-high-explosives".
*snort*
How much you want to bet the reason the stuff is missing to begin with is the "French Advisors" that had been in Iraq when we began invading?
In Afghanistan, the Canuks found a weapons cache and soome Froggies ran up and claimed they had control of the area.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1249533/posts
Article and post 1.
Odds that the French have something to do with it?
There were French Embassy staffers assisting in the destruction of documents in Iraq for awhile during the opening days of the push to Baghdad.
That sounds massively.. painful.
*chuckle*
Agree.
Does explain NO-GO Zones and the continuous road side bombings.
Also explains why the approach toward the cities in the Triangle have been approached so carefully. Seems there is the potential to create a sand pile in some of these cities, and why so many Iraqi people seem to oppose "freedom", may not have a choice.
"..By late 2003, diplomats said, arms agency experts had obtained commercial satellite photos of Al Qaqaa showing that two of roughly 10 bunkers that contained HMX appeared to have been leveled by titanic blasts, apparently during the war. They presumed some of the HMX had exploded, but that is unclear.
Other HMX bunkers were untouched. Some were damaged but not devastated. I.A.E.A. experts say they assume that just before the invasion the Iraqis followed their standard practice of moving crucial explosives out of buildings, so they would not be tempting targets. If so, the experts say, the Iraqi must have broken seals from the arms agency on bunker doors and moved most of the HMX to nearby fields, where it would have been lightly camouflaged - and ripe for looting..."
If Iraqis routinely removed explosives, there is no reason to expect them to be there.
Kerry has an I.A.E.A. report and NY Times article and is trying to bloviate a gale out of the story. If the Bush machine gets the counter spin out, this won't have real legs. Hell, it's the truth anyway.
Yeah.
Made me stop in my tracks when I read the Afghanistan business with the Froggy running up.
And with the Froggies in Iraq during the run up to the push to Baghdad, we'll never know the full extent of their backstabbing duplicity.
And since the IAEA (Or whatever it's acronymic is!) was supposed to be keeping tabs on the explosives, it doesn't look good.
The IAEA told us we couldn't remove anything from the dump, and then it turns out it's been raided?
Hmm.
With all the multi-thousand ammo dumps in Iraq, how did they expect us to secure all of them?
Especially since most are HUGE?
Since Saddam himself couldn't keep them secure while he was in power, how does anyone honestly expect anyone else to keep them secure?
/ end rambling.
Yup.
The bleating from the leftists I caught is hysterical.
They're freaking, and it's music to my ears.
Just a few months back they were screaming that Iraq was no threat etc etc etc.
Now they're saying there's a threat.
*snicker*
Can't wait until the election is over.
Also can't wait until everything behind the weapons for oil, oops, food for oil program is revealed.
*chuckle*
Not yet, Agent 47.
bump for reference.
Yes, sorry about that -- I realized moments after hitting the "send" button that you were making a point in the form of a question, not asking a question.
As for the first sentence, I don't see that it says the explosives were used in nuclear weapons research. It's ambiguously written (which I think is intentional), but I think the writers are saying that that type of explosive *may* be used for detonating nuclear weapons, not that those explosives *had* been used for research to that end.
I think it was written as it is in order to get the word "nuclear" bouncing around the media this week. Every time a newsie cites this story, they'll read the first line which contains the word "nuclear". The message conveyed, albeit obliquely, is that thanks to the Iraq war, these explosives -- which could be used in a nuclear WMD -- may now fall into the wrong hands.
It's a sneaky head game by the NYT in the week before an election. They're trying to undercut the administration's main justification for the war in Iraq (getting rid of WMDs) and to associate Bush with insecurity and risk rather than security. They're trying to make people feel anxious about Bush as they go into the voting booth.
That's a little tinfoily, but that's how it looks to me.
LOL!
Yeah, that'd be worth a few snickers or two.
I know a few lefties who wouldn't 'get' the joke though.
Your observations are completely accurate: this was an attempt to make President Bush look bad, but it unintentionally underscores why we needed to take down Iraq as one of the members of the "Axis of Evil". And if this is the best they can do to bring down the President after years of "research", then they really are pathetic. This really is old news from the old gray lady.
Kerry's fault.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.