I'm sorry. I was wrong. It was reported April 10th, 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.explosives/index.html

Dissecting the New York Times Hit Piece

JP

Republican screen saver:

http://www.despair.com/demotivators/incompetence.html

Boom boom, is right.:eek:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_1025.html

More good news via MSNBC and an embedded reporter in Baghdad:


Amy Robach: And it's still unclear exactly when those explosives disappeared. Here to help shed some light on that question is Lai Ling. She was part of an NBC news crew that traveled to that facility with the 101st Airborne Division back in April of 2003. Lai Ling, can you set the stage for us? What was the situation like when you went into the area?

Lai Ling Jew: When we went into the area, we were actually leaving Karbala and we were initially heading to Baghdad with the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. The situation in Baghdad, the Third Infantry Division had taken over Baghdad and so they were trying to carve up the area that the 101st Airborne Division would be in charge of. As a result, they had trouble figuring out who was going to take up what piece of Baghdad. They sent us over to this area in Iskanderia. We didn't know it as the Qaqaa facility at that point but when they did bring us over there we stayed there for quite a while. We stayed overnight, almost 24 hours. And we walked around, we saw the bunkers that had been bombed, and that exposed all of the ordinances that just lied dormant on the desert.

AR: Was there a search at all underway or did a search ensue for explosives once you got there during that 24-hour period?

LLJ: No. There wasn't a search. The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around. But as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons, nothing to keep looters away. But there was - at that point the roads were shut off. So it would have been very difficult, I believe, for the looters to get there.

AR: And there was no talk of securing the area after you left. There was no discussion of that?

LLJ: Not for the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. They were -- once they were in Baghdad, it was all about Baghdad, you know, and then they ended up moving north to Mosul. Once we left the area, that was the last that the brigade had anything to do with the area.

Whoa. I'm only on Page 2 and red-beard keeps asking the same question, and cool-chick keeps answering it. Red beard wants to know why the NY Times is reporting this story at this moment in time.

Red beard, that's kinda the nature of "time." It is a continuum, where the part that's in the future has not happened yet and the part in the past has. In August or even September, this information was not available to the NY Times. Now, it is. So, now it is possible for them to report it. In August, that was not possible.

Or perhaps you are just not clarifying your question. Perhaps you wonder why the NY Times is not suppressing this story until after the election. If so, then you probably also wonder why any patriot would even think of suggesting that maybe, conceivably, the "president" could have done something different, or better. In that case......





nevermind.

He's (i think) wondering why they had a plan in advance of running the story the day before the elecction, when it would do the most damage to Bush. Not really a question, since we all know the answer... just a rhetorical question.

I may be wrong... but suppressing a fictional story (i.e. NOT TRUE) would be the right thing to do, right? I mean, there's what's true, then there's what's not true. In this case, the story isn't true.

March 20, 2003: The war against Iraq begins 5:30 a.m. Baghdad time, when the U.S. launches Operation Iraqi Freedom.

April 10, 2003: U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division arrived at the Al Qaqaa storage facility south of Baghdad

If the UN left the location on March 20 , then there was not much Bush could do regarding securing this particular stockpile until the military was able to reach Baghdad. Maybe the UN buggered off months before? Maybe they didn’t. Going to war without UN approval simply accepts some risk regarding this. If the UN inspection / monitoring is curtailed then there is a period of time before the US can secure a particular site- I’m sure this was a fact that was considered in the decision to go to war.

Why did Condi only find out they were missing only a couple weeks ago?

As far as I've seen from the reports: the UN was last at that location Jan '03. Also reported today on CNN, the total tonnage quoted was from mid '02 figures and by Jan '03 a least 10% of this was taken away by Saddam's people with an excuse to use it to make cement (??). So there's some question on how much was there in April '03 anyhow.
On april 9th '03 the 3rd infantry came thru and encountered Saddam's troops at this location and fighting ensued; this is the unit wtih which the NBC crew that stated the explosives were gone was imbedded. The MSNBC crew was with the 101st the next day.
It was also reported today that some of the bunkers at this location were direct hits from air-strikes leaving only craters behind; the explosives in question may have indeed vanished into thin air.

You got lo love when a bush administration lie is dispatched with the facts.

Its interesting that the administration is trying to claim that the 101st determined what was and wasn't there without them even performing a full searcn and performing an inventory.

:rolleyes:

Please, one reporterette says she didn't see a search and that means they didn't? What about the other reporter that said it was all gone when they got there? Which is more likely?

Oooh, nooo. You can't trust the other reporter. He works for Fox, now.

Oh yeah, I guess embedded reporters have no idea what their unit is up to when they are hanging around in one place for 24 hours in the desert.

You guys sure will stoop to any inane supposition to try to deny the facts.

The NYT will stoop at anything to make up the facts.

What did NYT make up? Care to outline for us what they made up?

Uh hello, the other inbed said they were gone when they got there. What say you on that?

It's like we're pounding our heads against a wall here...

Must we explain the concept of the space and time? They were there. Then they weren't. They were taken before the good guys got there.

This story is EIGHTEEN months old, and it's being brought out for the only reason of hurting bush.

What more can be said? I mean, there are facts, and documentable evidence of where we were and when.

I just don't understand why lefties can't get the idea of truth and facts... i'm baffled.

If this is so "old" and we lefties can't get the idea of truth and facts, then why did the white house press secretary say that WE JUST FOUND OUT OCTOBER 15TH?

MR. McCLELLAN: Maybe the best way to do this is kind of walk you through how we came to be informed about this. The Iraqi Interim Government informed -- told the IAEA -- the International Atomic Energy Agency on October 10th that there were approximately 350 tons of high explosives missing from Al Qaqaa in Iraq. And they informed the IAEA because these munitions were subject to IAEA monitoring, because they were considered dual-use materials. And the International Atomic Energy Agency informed the United States mission in Vienna on October 15th about these -- this cache of explosives that was missing because of some looting that went on in Iraq toward the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom, or during and toward the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Q When did the President find out?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said, we were informed on October 15th. Condi Rice was informed days after that. This is all in the last, what, 10 days now.

Q She was informed days after October 15th?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and she informed the President. And the first priority, from our standpoint, was to make sure that this wasn't a nuclear proliferation risk, which it is not. These are conventional high explosives that we are talking about. And the President wants to make sure that we get to the bottom of this. Now, the Pentagon, upon learning of this, directed the multinational forces and the Iraqi survey group to look into this matter, and that's what they are currently doing.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041025-1.html

___________________________________

Explain that one to me PLEASE?

Wow, I'm off the board for a day and I figure this thread HAS to be dead after the revelations of NBC (as Liberal a stronghold as any network). They had reporters WITH our troops during the liberation and witnessed the empty buildings for christ's sake ...... :eek: It must have took an EXTRAORDINARY effort on their part to refute the NYTimes/CNN story! What more needs to be said? This story has Dan Rather's fingerprints all over it! :D

Here's the video clip for doubting hysterical Libs:

http://drudgereport.com/nbcw.htm

But back to a more important issue that the Libs are avoiding for some strange reason .... :D Is the 'planet' a safer place today because the United States has destroyed 405,898 tons of weapons? According to the Libs, 9/10ths of 1% of this amount is enough to anniliate the planet but what of the 405,898 tons of weapons already destroyed ... does Bush get any bonus points for that? hahahaa .... :cool:

How come CONDI DIDN'T KNOW THIS IF NBC DID?