Posted on 10/26/2004 5:07:22 PM PDT by focusandclarity
(CNSNews.com) - The New York Times on Tuesday defended its report on a missing cache of explosives in Iraq after Republicans accused the newspaper of ignoring the facts in a rush to attack President Bush.
The Times reported Monday that 380 tons of explosives had gone missing from the Al Qaqaa military facility in Iraq, which triggered a swift and harsh attack on Bush from Sen. John Kerry, who quickly produced an ad citing the article.
The Republican National Committee released a compilation of recent news reports on the missing explosives Tuesday, which it said proved that the Times and Kerry campaign were ignoring the facts to attack Bush.
The NBC Nightly News revealed Monday evening that it had an embedded reporter at Al Qaqaa on April 10, 2003, one day after the fall of Baghdad, and that none of the 380 tons of explosives were present.
"NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al-Qaqaa weapons installation south of Baghdad," Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski reported Monday. "But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing."
The Times' spokeswoman, Catherine Mathis, issued a statement to CNSNews.com on Tuesday afternoon defending the newspaper's report:
"Our front page story of October 25 reported accurately that a senior official at Iraq's Ministry of Science & Technology informed the International Atomic Energy Agency in a letter on October 10 that the materials were lost from the Al-qaqaa site after April 9, 2003, through the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security.'
"The IAEA took an inventory of the materials in January, 2003. In early March, right before the beginning of the war, the IAEA went to the site and found that the seals on the bunkers were still intact.
"Pentagon and White House officials told the Times, as the story says, that the materials vanished sometime after the U.S.-led invasion.
"The Times story also reported that U.S. forces visited the vast site on their way to Baghdad and saw no materials bearing the IAEA seal.
"We are continuing our reporting on the disappearance."
Moving 400 tons of anything is a daunting task, be it bags of rice, or crates of C4. And doing it under the noses of surveillance planes during wartime and getting away with it, is nearly impossible. No, if there ever was anything in those storage areas, it was removed prior to the US entry into Iraq.
New York Times: "All the news that fits, we print."
Still, in order to move that much material, a fair size convoy would be needed; it sure as heck wasn't done after initial hostilities ceased since there was too much surveillance going on in those first weeks, a lot of it by aircraft, and (I wouldn't doubt) a lot by satellite.
I agree, and I've been sold on the notion that it went via truck caravan to Syria while the UN security Council dithered about votes. [In fact I was just reminded that an article I found about the facility before the war had Uday (who I suspect might have been the family member who might have been in charged of the joint) quoted that September 11th would look mild compared to what they had in store for our troops. Didn't Uday and his brother travel to Syria (incognito) and then returned to meet their untimely and unsuspected fate? Going to try to find that article.]
Thanks for the post.
We need to stop buying newspapers that are corrupt like
NYT, L.A. Times.
I stopped buying L.A. Times, long ago.
We need to point out these newspapers every error, and tell
your friends. Show your friends where the paper is wrong.
This is best done when the newspaper has a write up about
something you know much about. Point out their inconsistencies
point out their illogical extrapolation of information,
point out the weaknesses in the research methodology.
And don't buy the paper. You can get all the news you
want from the internet, and other sources.
Newspapers, can now be considered irrelevant as sources
of news. Unless you don't use a computer. Time to put the
untruthful newspapers out to pasture.
"NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al-Qaqaa weapons installation south of Baghdad," Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski reported Monday. "But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing."
What part of NBC's report don't those syphilitic editors of the NYT understand? The explosives were not there to be guarded when our troops got there. When the NYT says the weapons disappeared "sometime" before April 9, does that leave open the possibility "sometime" means days, weeks, hours, or minutes?
So let me get this straight. The only FACTS they KNOW are:
Or, indeed, possibly before March, thru a hidden tunnel that would have bypassed the sealed door
And, obviously, it's all Bush's fault
60 foot vans require paved roads. What kind of roads were there by the bunkers? Unless they were alongside a paved highway, forget it.
Manure.
NYT is the buffoon of newspapers. Shilling and lying are no way to operate a media outlet. WRITE them!
The Pentagon says it isn't true; the White House says it isn't true. They've already been proven to fabricate at least this aspect of the story.
The "unnamed sources" bit from these idiot journalists is, to put it mildly, becoming ridiculous.
Since this was a well bombed site, much of it may have been blown up. Being a powder the wind could have gotten some of what was left. Didn't some from the 101 get sick there and they thought it was WMD bio or chem poisoning?
See BS also gave them the "play book" for discredited stories.
5.56mm
They probably figure with only a week left they can beat this one into the ground because after election day it is a non story. The only gain that can come from this is after this election the majority of people will finally see how blantantly biased the MSM is.
yup, that's exactly what the NYT, MSM will do, twist this right up until election day to sway the feeble minded. Sad thing is there are tooooo many feeble minded voting.
I'm not a logistics man, but I think his point dealt with both weight and volume. I'ts not like they would be hauling 380 tons of steel. A clarification from someone who knows would be good for all us to know the logistics of this...
I'm not buying that it just dissappeared into the desert. With that kind of weight they would sink. Had to be on the road and we had tanks on those roads.
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.