[ambrose]

Looting in today's NY Times article...

From yesterday's NY Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/politics/27bomb.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=

October 27, 2004

MISSING EXPLOSIVES

No Check of Bunker, Unit Commander Says

By JIM DWYER and DAVID E. SANGER

-snip-

Colonel Anderson, who is now the chief of staff for the 101st and spoke by telephone from Fort Campbell, Ky., said that he did not see any obvious signs of damage when he arrived on April 10, but that his focus was strictly on finding a secure place to collect his troops, who were driving and flying north from Karbala.

"There was no sign of looting here," Colonel Anderson said. "Looting was going on in Baghdad, and we were rushing on to Baghdad. We were marshaling in."

[GOPrincess]

Right, looters stormed the place with the U.S. military everywhere, and got rid of 380 tons of ammo... Captain's Quarters calculated it would take a company of nearly 100 men two weeks to do this. With surveillance flights, etc.? What a joke.

Meanwhile the WA TIMES does the real heavy lifting...it was the *Russians* who did it before the war? Yet another reason we CAN'T ELECT CARRY AND LIVE UNDER U.N. RULE. Other countries have very dirty pre-war hands.

[Phsstpok]

New York Times source of absolute truth about 'missing explosives': Iraqi looters and Baathist officers

ABC source of absolut truth about John Kerry's 'tour' in Vitenam: Vietcong terrorists

I think I'm detecting a pattern here.....

[Mike Darancette]

Did 400 looters take 2,000 pounds each or did 2,000 looters take 400 pounds each?

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

One wonders how it is possible for anyone to be so gullible to swallow anything at the NYT but already some of the spin is taking hold - so much so that part of the original 'facts' as told have now gone by the wayside as if they never existed. Remember how when the story was first released it was deliberately slanted to make it look like the whole sorry 'missing explosives' episode was something that just happened recently - like maybe last week? This aspect has very conveniently been slowly fading into the fog and replaced with an argument that the exact time of disappearance is still not known but was sometime after the troops first came to the site. This has been hammered upon by the NYT in subsequent articles (and of course picked up by all the shills on the boob-tube) such that it's as if this is what they had said all along. One can't ever lose sight that the original insinuation (that it was a recent event)was the part of the lie that caught everyone's attention first - and by allowing it to be ignored is to let the slimes escape unscathed from the false pretext that they had set up. That they have gotten caught in their web of lies is a given - but to cede them this point is to allow them to change the argument from one where a damning story that supposedly occurred during the election campaign (when the war was over and troops are trying to secure the peace) is replaced with a damning story that occurred some time in the past in the middle of a time when there was so much activity going on that it is hard to keep the time-line all straight (or so it could be argued). By taking this tact, it makes it a lot easier for the slimes to obfuscate and slither away and makes it less likely that they can be held accountable.

[Ruth A.]

Reminds me of how the museum was looted in Iraq...

[intolerancewillNOTbetolerated]

A report I heard on Glenn Beck's show said the "looting" would have to amount to the equivalent of 100 men working 12 hours a day for 10 days loading 40 very large truck.

Looters's avarice can be amazing, but I doubt they worked like army ants for days in cleaning this place out without detection.

The NYT just wants to keep the story alive with what is left of their reputation until after the election. Then they figure with one of their own at the helm, they will be able to restore things to the level of control over the dumbed down public they once enjoyed.