Final nail in Bush's coffin?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

No Russians. No pre-invasion movement of the goodies. Just good old fashioned incompetance and supported by the imbedded reporters. Man, whodathunk that a propaganda effort like that would come back to bite the administration in the keister???

Even thought the Washington Times released a story that Russians has moved the HMX and RDX, and the State Department later released intellignec photos to support this story, it seems that this video blows both stories out of the water. Seems to me that a few people are a little red faced this morning and that the credibility factor the Times and the administration i sh**ting an all time low.

Is ther ANY chance Bush gets re-elected?

[MrMastodonFarm]

God, let this election be over already. ;_;

[Mike F]

In case anyone is wondering what Lanny is talking about: Handy link to an actual story

[Cowperson]

Just good old fashioned incompetance and supported by the imbedded reporters.

Dana Lewis of NBC news, who was travelling with forces when they arrived there, said nothing was there.

You might remember Lewis is a Canadian and former Edmonton television anchor from the 1980's.

The headline on the Yahoo story says it all: Video May Show Explosives at Al-Qaqaa

Its a gigantic complex. There may have been materials in one place but not in others. Hence the conflicting accounts. Hard to say yet.

Those who say it was looted after the occupation make a good point - you would need piles and piles of trucks to move it.

And since when is Lanny sticking up for the indepence of embedded reporters. Aren't you the one constantly telling us they're controlled by the military. And now you present their account as evidence to support your case?

Maybe you should pick a side of the fence to stand on.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Hey bonehead, what part of "Man, whodathunk that a propaganda effort (the embedded troops) like that would come back to bite the administration in the keister???" did you miss?

Those tapes were viewed and cleared by sensors. To the military and the government they were not much of a threat. In fact they probably believed that they supported their cause. I bet they didn't think that something as innocent as this would come back to haunt them?

[Pileon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 29 2004, 08:42 AM
And since when is Lanny sticking up for the indepence of embedded reporters. Aren't you the one constantly telling us they're controlled by the military. And now you present their account as evidence to support your case?

Don't you see the irony. The embedded reporters are strictly controlled and now the video evidence comes out from that "controlled " source that turns the story against the adminstration.

Actually, it's not surprising. Everyone knew the administration rushed to war without a plan. This is just another example. They were ill prepared for events after the war. Part of it may have been their own success in reaching Baghdad as quickly and easily as they did. They didn't have enough forces to guard the place and keep the peace. Events like this and Abu Ghraib are what can be expected.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 29 2004, 03:53 PM
Hey bonehead, what part of "Man, whodathunk that a propaganda effort (the embedded troops) like that would come back to bite the administration in the keister???" did you miss?

Those tapes were viewed and cleared by sensors. To the military and the government they were not much of a threat. In fact they probably believed that they supported their cause. I bet they didn't think that something as innocent as this would come back to haunt them?

Video of embedded reporters is cleared by censors? That's news. You better shout that from the rooftops.

Lets face it, you're caught again talking out of both sides of your mouth and hoping nobody notices.

Don't you see the irony. The embedded reporters are strictly controlled and now the video evidence comes out from that "controlled " source that turns the story against the adminstration.

Aside from a few minor incidents, there haven't been many or any embedded reporters post-Iraq that I'm aware of who've said they were restricted as to what they could film or say beyond pre-agreed rules about revealing positions, strength, etc. That's simply a matter of record.

Being allowed on site is another issue but once there they can do and say what they want. Whether or not what they say or see makes its way into newspapers or television news is another matter. An example of the internal debate at news organizations as the Iraq conflict was progressing:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationwor...,0,289975.story

An internal USA Marine examination of the merits of embeds indicated a "limited success" with the experiment and worried about what would have been reported if things hadn't gone well:

The media brings the spotlight to our stage for good and ill. What would have been the headlines if the Coalition lost a battalion of infantrymen in a chemical attack? What if there was more nationalistic spirit in the hearts of the people of Iraq and a majority of the population fought us block-by-block? This is evidenced by the "Chicken Little" reporting in the media when the Division and 3d ID paused in the attack up Highways 1, 8 and 9. Visions of Vietnam danced in reporters' heads. According to many pundits in the press we were bogged down, stopped cold by the Fedayeen. Nothing could have been further than the truth. The myth was quickly dispelled by our success against the Ba'ath Party and paramilitary fighters, but never forget how quickly the press jumped on the bandwagon of doom and gloom.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=15&ItemID=4751

It's interesting that in this thread we have one reporter, Dana Lewis of NBC News, a Canadian no less, saying nothing was at the ammo site and a Minneapolic crew saying there was. An obvious contrast and debate.

Cowperson

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 29 2004, 09:45 AM
It's interesting that in this thread we have one reporter, Dana Lewis of NBC News, a Canadian no less, saying nothing was at the ammo site and a Minneapolic crew saying there was. An obvious contrast and debate.

In this interview, Lewis says that "I’ve had those seals described to me, and I can tell you that as we went from the bunkers certainly there were wires and there were locks but I don’t recall ever seeing an IAEA stamp on any of them. It doesn’t mean that there weren’t any of them." I don't see him anywhere saying nothing was at the site.

From what I gathered from the Pentagon briefing this morning:

Sometime before the war started there are photos of a number of Iraqi trucks at Al-Qaqaa

April 10 Troops from the 101st Airborne Division’s (with Lewis) spend 24 hours at the site, search for chemical weapons — but not high explosives — and then head to Baghdad. Al-Qaqaa is left unguarded.

April 13 the Major at the Pentagon briefing and a number of US forces remove ~250 tonnes of munitions and equiptment from Al-qaqaa, but don't know whether any of it was the high explosives people are concerned about. Al-Qaqaa is left unguarded.

April 18 a handful of US troops and the Minnessota reporter arrive, break open IAEA sealed bunkers and find tonnes of explosives. The IAEA says they only put seals over high explosives. Al-Qaqaa is left unguarded.

After April 18, everything else cleared out by someone

[Lurch]

It's interesting that in this thread we have one reporter, Dana Lewis of NBC News, a Canadian no less, saying nothing was at the ammo site and a Minneapolic crew saying there was. An obvious contrast and debate.

Are the two comparable? The Minneapolis crew has actual footage, not hearsay. Seems like a slam-dunk on credibility if you ask me - though in the interest of fairness, I must admit my pre-existing hope that this IS in fact on Bush. The weapons are missing regardless, so I'd much rather see it pinned on Bush than explained away.

[Bingo]

My thoughts on this whole thing ...

1. You don't want to lose explosives in a hostile nation. I think we can all agree on that.
2. Bush didn't lose it himself. You don't have to believe me on this, but I wouldn't hold a micro management in the field military gaff (if it was one) on a sitting President. I wouldn't have blamed Clinton and I wouldn't have blamed Kerry if this happens in a year. Everyone has their own take, but it's not a policy/voting issue for me.
3. I can't believe nobody has touched on the timing of this. CBS and The New York Times both working on a story as far back as 17 months ago and the Times through CBS' direction release it 7 days before a Federal election? Yikes ... and Fox gets a hard time on this site.
4. Facts are still not straight. Even if the video is the clear cut conclusion to this, the Dems made their sweeping statements before the video was available and therefore without proof.

[Lurch]

2. Bush didn't lose it himself. You don't have to believe me on this, but I wouldn't hold a micro management in the field military gaff (if it was one) on a sitting President. I wouldn't have blamed Clinton and I wouldn't have blamed Kerry if this happens in a year. Everyone has their own take, but it's not a policy/voting issue for me.
3. I can't believe nobody has touched on the timing of this. CBS and The New York Times both working on a story as far back as 17 months ago and the Times through CBS' direction release it 7 days before a Federal election? Yikes ... and Fox gets a hard time on this site.
4. Facts are still not straight. Even if the video is the clear cut conclusion to this, the Dems made their sweeping statements before the video was available and therefore without proof.

2. Bush desire to go in with low manpower did influence this. Symtom of the larger problem which I would hang on Bush.
3. Timing: as you note, story is still not straight. As such, there are two choices. Release after the election when it don't much matter, or release pre-election and let people make up their own mind.
4. Can't believe you would go here on the issue of speaking before 'all the evidence is in'. The balance of the evidence is enough to go to war, but not to criticize during a campaign?? Furthermore, the majority of the Dems I have seen discussing the issue acknowledged that it was not a slam dunk in this instance, but it was symtomatic of the larger 'rush to war' issue. In reply, GOP speakers come up with "Even the Democrats acknowledge this story is BS". Politics aren't made for open discussion and admissions that you aren't 100% sure, which is ironically a common criticism of Kerry.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Oct 29 2004, 06:14 PM

Are the two comparable? The Minneapolis crew has actual footage, not hearsay. Seems like a slam-dunk on credibility if you ask me - though in the interest of fairness, I must admit my pre-existing hope that this IS in fact on Bush. The weapons are missing regardless, so I'd much rather see it pinned on Bush than explained away.

In all honesty, I don't care if its pinned on Bush either. I said in another thread on the matter its just one more thing in a line of mismanagement of the post-conflict in Iraq.

If its true.

The argument that its true is the Minneapolis footage. There's also an argument that its tough to move hundreds of tons of something without a long train of trucks being a dead giveaway.

But its also obvious there was a ton of stuff that went unguarded in the aftermath. There aren't many arguing the Bush camp hasn't been poor stewards in the war's aftermath.

Cowperson

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Bingo+Oct 29 2004, 11:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Oct 29 2004, 11:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> 2. Bush didn't lose it himself. You don't have to believe me on this, but I wouldn't hold a micro management in the field military gaff (if it was one) on a sitting President. I wouldn't have blamed Clinton and I wouldn't have blamed Kerry if this happens in a year. Everyone has their own take, but it's not a policy/voting issue for me. [/b]

No, but his administration chose to fight the war with too few troops to do things like secure massive stockpiles of arms, the Iraqi Department of Nuclear Energy etc. That's a policy choice he made and one which he still insists wasn't a mistake. If he doesn't consider it a mistake, why should you believe he'd act any differently in the future?

<!--QuoteBegin-Bingo
4. Facts are still not straight. Even if the video is the clear cut conclusion to this, the Dems made their sweeping statements before the video was available and therefore without proof.[/quote]

No, they made it without conclusive, definitive proof. There was plenty of proof in the story itself, which this video backs up.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lurch@Oct 29 2004, 12:31 PM
2. Bush desire to go in with low manpower did influence this. Symtom of the larger problem which I would hang on Bush.
3. Timing: as you note, story is still not straight. As such, there are two choices. Release after the election when it don't much matter, or release pre-election and let people make up their own mind.
4. Can't believe you would go here on the issue of speaking before 'all the evidence is in'. The balance of the evidence is enough to go to war, but not to criticize during a campaign?? Furthermore, the majority of the Dems I have seen discussing the issue acknowledged that it was not a slam dunk in this instance, but it was symtomatic of the larger 'rush to war' issue. In reply, GOP speakers come up with "Even the Democrats acknowledge this story is BS". Politics aren't made for open discussion and admissions that you aren't 100% sure, which is ironically a common criticism of Kerry.

2. How many troops are needed to guarantee 100% weapon recovery in a country literally filled with them? I read somewhere that this deposite amounts to 0.5% of the recovered weaponry in Iraq. I hope you get cut a little more slack on your job.
3. Timing is a huge issue ... they could have released this story a year ago if they just wanted to "let people make up their own mind". By doing it now they clearly want to make said people's minds up for them. Hence my issue with the timing.
4. I didn't know if Hussein had weapons of mass destruction last March, but I did know that there was enough circumstantial proof to make waiting for concrete proof a dangerous proposition.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Bingo@Oct 29 2004, 12:02 PM
2. How many troops are needed to guarantee 100% weapon recovery in a country literally filled with them? I read somewhere that this deposite amounts to 0.5% of the recovered weaponry in Iraq. I hope you get cut a little more slack on your job.

If you go purely by weight, what was stolen was small.

But again, what we're talking about are high explosives the types of which are used as a part of nuclear bombs. There is a reason that the IAEA flagged this stuff and not other conventional weapons, so to try to portray 200 tonnes of this as somehow equivalent to 200 tonnes of, say, RPG's is completely misleading.

That being said, the real problem isn't just that it went missing, but that much of it went missing after the US had their hands on it 3 times and repeatedly left it unguarded. I hope you get slapped down for such conduct on your job.

[Bingo]

You're right ... I don't have tonnage by degrees of scariness, but then I would surmise you don't either.

Hey I'm not saying it's a good thing, but the timing of it is pretty dirty given the highly Liberal news sources that brought it forward.

And, for me, it wouldn't be an election issue.

[octothorp]

Originally posted by Bingo@Oct 29 2004, 02:14 PM
Hey I'm not saying it's a good thing, but the timing of it is pretty dirty given the highly Liberal news sources that brought it forward.

And, for me, it wouldn't be an election issue.

Maybe I'm naive but I just don't see news agencies holding off on a story in the hopes that they can time it for greater impact. I've heard people accusing Fox of the same, but it seems to me that most news agencies print things as quickly as they can, out of fear that another news agency will outscoop them.

I'd agree, though, that it's really not something that should be a big election issue--it's vaguely representational of the administration's underpreparedness, but not so much that it should be the dominating issue in the final week of an election campaign.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Bingo@Oct 29 2004, 02:14 PM
Hey I'm not saying it's a good thing, but the timing of it is pretty dirty given the highly Liberal news sources that brought it forward.

And, for me, it wouldn't be an election issue.

So let me get this straight:

1. From the whole "Nuisance" fiasco I gathered that the candidates' ability to fight the war on terror is a key factor for you;

2. The US Army's inability to secure a huge cache of high explosives is yet another example of the Bush admin's horrible planning for the post-war environment in Iraq; and

3. Bush doesn't think anything they've done was a mistake, and the closest any senior cabinet member has come to admitting their planning was inept was to say they won too easily, all of which indicates that they'll likely make similar decisions in the future,

and somehow it's not an election issue for you

All because you think you can write off the legitimate content of the story based on what you see to be questionable timing? Even if they did sit on the story (which there is no evidence of), how would it change the content of it?

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by Mike F@Oct 29 2004, 03:21 PM
All because you think you can write off the legitimate content of the story based on what you see to be questionable timing? Even if they did sit on the story (which there is no evidence of), how would it change the content of it?

That one's easy, man. Diversionary tactics and rhetorical smoke and mirrors are fundamental to the defense of the Republican world view. In actuality, their stance is something along the lines of "I don't give a sh*t, what suits me suits me", but that never looks good. Instead, they throw up the diversions as ways to excuse various policy decisions and so on so it looks like they're tackling the issue, when really they're skirting the issue in the worst way.

It gets worse when they actually start to believe their smoke and mirrors ARE answers to the problem. In this case, somehow the timing of the story illegitimizes it. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, but as I said, it's easier (and habitual) to do so in order to avoid compromising one's values and party affiliation.

[badnarik]

i wonder how they could leave it unguarded. they obviously wouldn't be wasting time looking for WMD's that they knew didn't exist. they must have been stealing oil.