Main > Everything Else
Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
TA Pilot:
Either come up with a different scenario or accept one of those
Scenario 3:
The explosives in question were gone before we got there.
Scenario 4:
We took the explosives and disposed of them.
This is straight up ignorance on the part of the Bush administration.
Given the evience you have to support your charges, and the timing of its release, its far better characterized as a bitter, partisan effort to affect the election.
This proves everything.
No. It doesn't.
It doesnt prove that the explosives were there when we got there
It doesnt prove that the explosives were anywhere near the quantities charged
It doesnt prove the Iraqis took it.
Unles you can do those things, you have nothing.
Crazy Cooter:
I don't need to prove any of those things. And you didn't answer.
Did Bush know the stuff was supposed to be there?
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: Crazy Cooter on October 29, 2004, 04:00:02 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
what information was there, and who did this information come from? They were in the area back in April 2003 and this is being reported NOW. Who had information, what was this information, and where was this information?
TA Pilot:
I don't need to prove any of those things.
For the loss of the explosives to be our fault?
Yes. You do. Each and every part.
mr.Curmudgeon:
For the loss of the explosives to be our fault?
Yes. You do. Each and every part.
Only the amount is in dispute, TA, you know that...
There is irrefutable proof that there was a large portion of explosives left unguarded, all of which has gone missing. What is your point? It's *ok* if it was just 200 tons, or 100 tons of material? Do you care so little for our troops that you'd seek to differentiate between the levels of incompetence in this administration? Making them partial incompetent, or completely incompetent. Why are you so comfortable lowering the bar for Bush? Is that the only way you can support him?
Also, to further bolster the rational case we've made against whatever argument it is you've been trying to put forth (you really aren't doing very well), there is this latest news:
"A French journalist who visited the Qaqaa munitions depot south of Baghdad in November last year said she witnessed Islamic insurgents looting vast supplies of explosives more than six months after the demise of Saddam Hussein's regime."
Put this together with the fact that, Maj. Pearson, when asked at the Pentagon CYA conference, if insurgents could have carried off 150 tons of that stuff in a short period of time as a practical matter. He replied that it seems like a lot, but in fact it could be done really quickly. (ie: given enough time, you don't need vast amounts of heavy equipment), How do you argue against the fact that this shows a large (by any amount) stash of extremely deadly explosives and ammunition (not the same thing), left completely unguarded for an extended period of time?
Again, Game. Set. Match.