[CatOwner]

Doubtful. You can't have a second chemical weapons factory siting until you confirm the first. As is, the Pentagon is backpedeling on the first story.

[Sofa King]

Where have you seen them backpeddling? I just read that they confirmed it.

[Jean S]

As is, the Pentagon is backpedeling on the first story.

I hadn't heard that. Do you have a link?

[crazykatz]

YOUR ideas are DOUBTFUL!!

[Mr. Lucky]

Have you a link for the backpedeling claim?

[piasa]

I haven't seen them backpeddle so far- to do so they would have had to backpeddle within the last hour or so since they so recently came out positive on the story.

The confusion may be because Saturday they said they hadn't heard of it but Sunday they said it was confirmed, probably because by then they had communications from the men on the scene. Some people got their dates switched and thought the Saturday comments were made on Sunday.

[LibertyThug]

My goodness, the same posting on two threads.

How about: There has been another potential siting of another potential chemical weapons plant.

Do you feel better now???

[Numbers Guy]

Doubtful. You can't have a second chemical weapons factory siting until you confirm the first. As is, the Pentagon is backpedeling on the first story.

The headline states "chemical plant", not "chemical weapons factory". There's little doubt that the first is a chemical plant, it's just a question of whether it makes chemical weapons.

[xm177e2]

Bullsh-t. The Pentagon hasn't "backpedalled" on anything. Unnamed sources say there is a chemical plant on a 100-acre plot, surrounded by an electric fence, camoflauged from the air, with a 30 soldiers surrenderring inside--including an Iraqi general! If even half of that is true, it would be an extremely suspicious plant. That is the first; this new plant discovered is the second.

[kattracks]

There was a former weapons inspector (not one of Blix's) on MSMBC earlier who said that the first plant the troops found was not inspected by Blix's team. In fact, it wasn't even on the list that Iraq submitted to the UN.

[Busywhiskers]

"Doubtful. You can't have a second chemical weapons factory siting until you confirm the first. As is, the Pentagon is backpedeling on the first story."

Seems to me that before one accuses the military of backpedaling there are a couple questions to be asked.

For example, what is the original source of the information that the facility captured was a chemical weapons plant, the Pentagon, or speculation from troops in the field communicated via embedded reporters hungry for a story. As much as I admire and respect our frontline troops, I doubt they have the technical knowledge to make a determination whether a facility is a chemical weapons plant. Very likely the Pentagon is being cautious until they get a definative expert determination. That is not backpedaling. It's prudence.

[doc]

Exactly! The first story was bogus.

[hole_n_one]

FNC interviewing Jerusalem Post reporter who is/was at the first suspected site.......

Huge facilty, well camoflauged
Appeared to be recently abandoned

[Travis McGee]

Oh sure, all countries put their innocent pesticide plants out in the desert, and then go to incredible lengths to camouflage them from the air. That's typical, all innocent pesticide plants are hidden and camouflaged.

[fire and forget]

The site apparently appears to be a chemical weapons facility. They're slow in taking the steps to confirm this because who knows what kind of trap they'll find inside. They'll take their time to minimize risks.

Give 'em a few more hours. If they're right and this is what it's believed to be, this is a huge event.

On the political end, we're covering ourselves should there not be enough evidence (no real or convincing product, for example) that this truly is the first "smoking gun" confirming that Bush's policy is correct. In any event, everything so far points to this being the real deal. It's a military facility, evidently commanded by a general officer. What else might it be unless it's an elaborate ruse?

[madison46]

Very true...i'm turning into a HUGE skeptic.

[goody2shooz]

...the Pentagon is backpedeling on the first story.

Actually they are just putting on hold exactly what the facility might be. They are sending the proper team, with anti-contamination suits, out to the first site to make an evaluation. No one dares go inside until that team arrives and checks it out.

[Humidston]

I gather this means you'll be disappointed if they do prove it? Well, hide and watch!

Sheesh.... You must be named Hans Blix.

[RightOnline]

"As is, the Pentagon is backpedeling on the first story."

No, they aren't. Quite the opposite.

Plus.........if it isn't a chemical weapons plant of some type, why was it A) heavily camouflaged to blend in with the surrounding desert, B) surrounded by heavy barbed wire, C) guarded by over 30 Iraqi troops, D) ringed by aging barracks........barracks, as in the places where soldiers bunk, and D) run by a general officer?

Oh yes.....and do chemical workers routinely "surrender"?

Think Dow Chemical, Iraqi branch just got a wild hair one day?

[HamiltonJay]

How can the Pentago be backpeddeling? The Pentagon never made the claim the first was a chemical weapons plant.... troops on the ground may have echoed to their reporter things, but the Pentagon never officially said one way or another to my knowledge on it yet.

[TLBSHOW]

Pentagon is backpedeling on the first story.


the liberal rats are having a field day with that too...