Main > Everything Else
Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
TA Pilot:
Make their case?
You havent made yours.
All you have is that there was (supposedly) 377 tons of explosives in these bunkers in Jan 2003, there was some amount of some sort of explosives in one of the bunkers 18 April 2003, and none on 8 May 2003.
Thats the entire support for your case of Bush "dropping the ball".
patrickl:
Proof? Oh no none again. Why do you wake us up when you have nothing?
mr.Curmudgeon:
--- Quote from: TA Pilot on October 29, 2004, 02:31:06 pm ---Make their case?
You havent made yours.
All you have is that there was (supposedly) 377 tons of explosives in these bunkers in Jan 2003, there was some amount of some sort of explosives in one of the bunkers 18 April 2003, and none on 8 May 2003.
Thats the entire support for your case of Bush "dropping the ball".
--- End quote ---
Supposedly?
"In January 2003, IAEA inspectors viewed and inventoried the explosives at Al-Qaqaa for the last time. They placed fresh seals over the bunker doors. On March 15, 2003 inspectors visited Al-Qaqaa for the last time but apparently did not examine the explosives because according to their report, the seals on the bunker doors were not broken."
You must believe the Russians sucked it out the air vents.
Sorry, Bush dropped the ball. But if you need to ignore that in order to pull the lever on Tues., so be it.
TA Pilot:
Supposedly?
Yes. Supposedly. The IAEA did not confrim the tonnage on 15 March.
The documents show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility. Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1
This ignores the issue about not knowing exactly what was in them to begin with, which you will also find in the story I cited. Its hard to claim that Bush allowed 377 tons to be stolen when they cant say for certain that 377 tons were there to begin with.
So, all you have is that there was (supposedly) 377 tons of explosives in these bunkers in Jan 2003, there was some amount of some sort of explosives in one of the bunkers 18 April 2003, and none on 8 May 2003.
This proves... nothing.
Now, if you believe that this proves that Bush did drop the ball, and that's what it takes for you to be able to vote for Kerry - so be it.
Crazy Cooter:
Think about it TA.
"if you believe that this proves that Bush did drop the ball"
SCENARIO 1: Bush knew the material was supposed to be there, but didn't tell the guys to look for it & secure it. He dropped the ball in this scenario.
SCENARIO 2: Bush didn't know the stuff was supposed to be there. Poor planning, the information was there. He dropped the ball in this scenario.
I'm not using hindsight, I'm not second guessing, I'm not blaming the troops. Either come up with a different scenario or accept one of those. Bush screwed up. Who care who did what after the fact. This is straight up ignorance on the part of the Bush administration.
"So, all you have is that there was (supposedly) 377 tons of explosives in these bunkers in Jan 2003, there was some amount of some sort of explosives in one of the bunkers 18 April 2003, and none on 8 May 2003.
This proves... nothing."
This proves everything. I don't care what the exact weight was. It should have been zero. It wasn't. Why? Because Bush didn't do his homework. Either he didn't know about it, or he didn't care what happened to it.
Why are you even questioning the tonnage? Back on page 1 you were saying:
"You do not "loot" 380 tons of explosives.
You move them with trucks. Lots of them. ~40 10-ton trucks, to be more precise."
Your whole arguement rested on there being too much to move. Now you insinuate there was very little.
My question to you hasn't changed. Nor has my arguement. When will you answer?