So, where are(were) those WMDs?

[Ashock]

...perhaps this will help clarify the issue, or in a nutshell... the more things change the more they stay the same.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/200410...22637-6257r.htm

Oh, and isn't this a major enough story to be followed up on by the so-called major networks? I guess Julia Robert's early contractions are more important....


-A

[Jester]

"Oh, and isn't this a major enough story to be followed up on by the so-called major networks?"

Might they not want some kind of confirmation beyond "someone who has a vested interest in them having been shipped out by the Russians has learned from a "reliable source" that they were shipped out by the Russians"?

I'm not saying it didn't happen, although I strongly suspect that to be the case. Corroborating evidence is always helpful before one goes trumpeting something from the minarets.

Oh, and I love the ad for "stolen honour" in the middle of the story. Very classy and unbiased-like.

Jester

[Ashock]

"Oh, and isn't this a major enough story to be followed up on by the so-called major networks?"

Might they not want some kind of confirmation beyond "someone who has a vested interest in them having been shipped out by the Russians has learned from a "reliable source" that they were shipped out by the Russians"?

I'm not saying it didn't happen, although I strongly suspect that to be the case. Corroborating evidence is always helpful before one goes trumpeting something from the minarets.

Oh, and I love the ad for "stolen honour" in the middle of the story. Very classy and unbiased-like.

Jester
[right][snapback]58572[/snapback][/right]

So, in your opinion, The Washington Times is not a reputable enough source? Would you react the same way if the word "Times" would be preceded by the words "New York"?

As far as the russkies are concerned, well this is easy. The reason the story came out now, is because Putin wants Bush to win, so he leaked this info now. These days (as always has been the case), the russians will do anything (and I mean anything) to further their goals. Now, they would not make this up as this is a very serious matter that does not cast them in a good light, but they *will* go as far as admitting to something like that if it suits their purposes. In a case like this, they simply figured that the positives stemming from a Bush re-election, outweigh the possible negatives that come out from this story, at least for them.
There's always been rumours and allegations that the weapons were ferried out of Iraq before the US troops went in. There's never been concrete enough proof. Well, this simply confirms those rumours.

Believe me, I understand that you will fight tooth and nail to find a reason to dismiss this or anything else that will make the present administration look better, but that's ok with me.


-A

[eppie]

As far as the russkies are concerned, well this is easy. The reason the story came out now, is because Putin wants Bush to win, so he leaked this info now. -A
[right][snapback]58574[/snapback][/right]

I don't think it was the russians that leaked the info. This was information apparently from britisch and (french or german) inteligence. In other words, if this was true, this info was already there before the invasion, and Bush could have used this as a reason. But he didn't, so I guess it is not true. Mind you the rumours that Iraq moved all his weapons to other countries have been there already for quite some time. To me it seems a bit ridiculous, the US was able to see a few mobile biological plants/trucks (that were not even there) so why wouldn't they see all those trucks moving out of Iraq?
No to me this is just electiontalk.

[Zarathustra]

So, in your opinion, The Washington Times is not a reputable enough source? Would you react the same way if the word "Times" would be preceded by the words "New York"?[right][snapback]58574[/snapback][/right]

I think he was questioning The Washington Times' source, not the newspaper itself. I tend to agree that a bit more confirmation would be nice. The newspaper is a secondary source on this matter, thus the primary should rightly be questioned.

And the reputation of a news organization does not denote truth.

(Edit/Addition) Here's a bit more on the story, taken from cnn.com: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/28/...ives/index.html

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

There's always been rumours and allegations that the weapons were ferried out of Iraq before the US troops went in. There's never been concrete enough proof. Well, this simply confirms those rumours.

Assertions by a Deputy Undersecretary, who is consequently shunned and unsupported by his Department, spell "concrete" to you, neh?

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior Pentagon officials distanced themselves from comments in The Washington Times by Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John Shaw about the explosives...

...

But senior Pentagon officials told CNN they have seen no intelligence information that would corroborate Shaw's assessment.

Asked about Shaw's comments during an interview on WABC radio in New York, Rumsfeld said, "No, I have no information on that at all and cannot validate that even slightly."

Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita said Shaw was not speaking for the Pentagon and that his views were not those of senior defense officials. DiRita also said that Shaw's superiors were talking to him about his comments.

Seems the Washington Times should have invested into a bit more corroboration, as opposed to following Dan Rather down into the Abyss of Journalistic Sensationalism.

[Bun-Bun]

So, in your opinion, The Washington Times is not a reputable enough source? Would you react the same way if the word "Times" would be preceded by the words "New York"?
[right][snapback]58574[/snapback][/right]

The Washington Times is not a reputable source. It is owned by Sun Myung Moon and has a definite agenda.

The New York Times is a reputable paper that has a history of journalistic integerity, with some lapses.

So, no, my reaction would be entirely different if it were in the New York Times. Or the Washington Post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times

Edit: The typo police have been summoned. Nobody move.

[kandrathe]

So, in your opinion, The Washington Times is not a reputable enough source? Would you react the same way if the word "Times" would be preceded by the words "New York"?
[right][snapback]58574[/snapback][/right]

:blink:

Hoovers - Business Directory Online

They sound reputable... But...

[jahcs]

Oh, and isn't this a major enough story to be followed up on by the so-called major networks? I guess Julia Robert's early contractions are more important....
-A
[right][snapback]58550[/snapback][/right]

On the issue of the weapons, to the US Government and electoral candidates: Stop Finger Pointing and Get to the Bottom of This!!

Also, I do recall a news story from this summer of trucks seen moving into Syria just prior to the invasion.

And as far as news coverage during an election year goes, it is even more worthless than usual. Yesterday's news coverage is an example. They outlined Bush's campaign stops for the day and Kerry's stops for the day. Then they played clips of Leonardo DiCaprio, Bruce Springsteen, and Ashton Kutcher's campaigning for Kerry. Then they said another soldier had been killed in Iraq. The next story lasted longer than all of this combined: a Seattle Seahawk has sprained his ankle worse than previously thought and will probably not be able to play in Sunday's game.

Edit: here is link to another story:
Missing Explosives Capture Spotlight

[Occhidiangela]

...perhaps this will help clarify the issue, or in a nutshell... the more things change the more they stay the same.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/200410...22637-6257r.htm

Oh, and isn't this a major enough story to be followed up on by the so-called major networks? I guess Julia Robert's early contractions are more important....
-A
[right][snapback]58550[/snapback][/right]

Snort. You got the libs to bite, nice troll Ashock. :D

As to the red herring offered to you on the New York Times being reputable, its integrity has been dubious for some time. The quality of writing is still pretty good.

"Some lapses?" Jesus wept, I wonder who here has ever read, over a sustained period of time, the paper with an eye to what is reported, versus what is not, and then there is the editorial page? The slant? After reading it for three straight years, 98 - 01, pre 9-11, it was blatantly obvious where the editorial slant was.

The issue of making up stories and letting a lad get away with it is bad management. The issue of editorial bias is a matter of integrity.

All the news that fits? No, all the news that fits between the ads.

Occhi

PS: The Washington Times does not seem to me to try and hide its bias, however, Rev Moon's influence may be overstated. Not sure, I take all their stories with a grain of salt, after having read a lot of "US Air Force Mouthpiece" articles concerning the Comanche helicopter program while I was involved with that now-consigned-to-the-boneyard-with-the-Crusader-and-the-A-12 program.

[Any1]

I thought that WMD did not refer to conventional arms such as high explosives, since any conventional army will have tonnes of this stuff. I always assumed it refered to chemical, biological, and nuclear arms. I'm not trying to discount the story, I'm just trying to get a grip on the terminology.

[jahcs]

I thought that WMD did not refer to conventional arms such as high explosives, since any conventional army will have tonnes of this stuff.  I always assumed it refered to chemical, biological, and nuclear arms.  I'm not trying to discount the story, I'm just trying to get a grip on the terminology.
[right][snapback]58631[/snapback][/right]

You are correct Any1.

The confusion may start with people using any Iraqi situation as an election talking point - which invariably leads to talks of WMDs and whether they existed at all or are missing. These explosives are currently in the missing category and there was a lot of it - creating the potential for massive destruction. Also, some of the explosives listed can be used as a component of nuclear weapons.

When the picture presented by the media is drawn with crayon "so the common folk can understand it" the lines will definitely become blurred and the people with the desire for facts get left behind.

EDIT: check this new development out:Questions answered? Or more questions created?

[Ashock]

Snort.  You got the libs to bite, nice troll Ashock.   :D

As to the red herring offered to you on the New York Times being reputable, its integrity has been dubious for some time.  The quality of writing is still pretty good.

Hehe, ahh just like old times. Feels good B)


As far as the NY Times.... you're right, the quality of writing is still ok, but then again I never thought that liberals were uneducated. I've thought of other things 'bout them, but not that one.


Now, gotta go and check if my grandpa's KGB connections are still good :ph34r:



-A ;)

[Taem]

Seems the Washington Times should have invested into a bit more corroboration, as opposed to following Dan Rather down into the Abyss of Journalistic Sensationalism.
[right][snapback]58594[/snapback][/right]

Speaking of which, even though I support Kerry (or better said as of late, I support the idea of dethroning Bush which is why I support Kerry), he has been jumping on EVERYTHING he can to make the president look bad, and IMO this just makes him look bad. His sensationalism reminds me of a child running to his mommy shouting, "MOM! Guess what 'so-and-so' did?!?" Blaming Bush for the lack of flu vaccinations was immature. There were a few more things Kerry was whining about this week that I just can't think of right now but really wanted to comment on, so I'll just leave this as is. I think my point is made.

[ManaCraft]

Speaking of which, even though I support Kerry (or better said as of late, I support the idea of dethroning Bush which is why I support Kerry), he has been jumping on EVERYTHING he can to make the president look bad, and IMO this just makes him look bad.  His sensationalism reminds me of a child running to his mommy shouting, "MOM!  Guess what 'so-and-so' did?!?"

Agreed. Actually I often find myself amazed at how political campaigns are run in the US. Making the other candidate look bad seems to be a lot more important than making yourself look good. It seems to be tradition that the debate always devolves into a mud throwing contest the last week or so before the election (if not before).

What's worse is that a good portion of the voters apparently buy into the stuff.


ManaCraft

[kandrathe]

...
EDIT:  check this new development out:Questions answered?  Or more questions created?
[right][snapback]58634[/snapback][/right]

This was my suspicion. The US army was in enough turmoil after the quick fall of Baghdad that it is very possible that some demolitions unit was ordered to dispose of the stuff and the paperwork fell through the chasms, like alot of other stuff. Too fast and loose perhaps.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

This was my suspicion.  The US army was in enough turmoil after the quick fall of Baghdad that it is very possible that some demolitions unit was ordered to dispose of the stuff and the paperwork fell through the chasms, like alot of other stuff.  Too fast and loose perhaps.
[right][snapback]58670[/snapback][/right]

Maybe the boys watched "Three Kings" one too many times. ;)

[Jester]

So, in your opinion, The Washington Times is not a reputable enough source? Would you react the same way if the word "Times" would be preceded by the words "New York"?

As far as the russkies are concerned, well this is easy. The reason the story came out now, is because Putin wants Bush to win, so he leaked this info now. These days (as always has been the case), the russians will do anything (and I mean anything) to further their goals. Now, they would not make this up as this is a very serious matter that does not cast them in a good light, but they *will* go as far as admitting to something like that if it suits their purposes. In a case like this, they simply figured that the positives stemming from a Bush re-election, outweigh the possible negatives that come out from this story, at least for them.
There's always been rumours and allegations that the weapons were ferried out of Iraq before the US troops went in. There's never been concrete enough proof. Well, this simply confirms those rumours.

Believe me, I understand that you will fight tooth and nail to find a reason to dismiss this or anything else that will make the present administration look better, but that's ok with me.
-A
[right][snapback]58574[/snapback][/right]

"Believe me, I understand that you will fight tooth and nail to find a reason to dismiss this or anything else that will make the present administration look better, but that's ok with me."

Oh, don't worry, Ashock. I've seen enough to know that that's exactly what you understand I'll do. Indeed, your belief might be reinforced by my response to...

"So, in your opinion, The Washington Times is not a reputable enough source? Would you react the same way if the word "Times" would be preceded by the words "New York"?"

... this. Do I believe the Washington Times is a less reputable source than the NYT? Yes. Do I believe everything the NYT prints? Of course not. Politically, I'm only slightly farther from the Washington Times than from the NYT. Much of what the NYT put out in the frenetic drumming for war ("stuff that makes the present administration look good") turned my stomach. I didn't believe them when they printed crap, nor do I believe anyone else when they do the same, to the best of my abilities.

However, as was pointed out, the source I was (primarily) criticising was not the Washington Times. They're just the messenger, although the ad for "stolen honor" was a little blatant. I was critcizing one John A. Shaw, deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security. The guy who works under Rumsfeld, a past master at spewing complete junk to cover his butt.

"These days (as always has been the case), the russians will do anything (and I mean anything) to further their goals."

Like, maybe, lying about things? What makes it more reasonable that they're "admitting" this to make Bush look good, rather than just being outright dishonest to give Bush the boost?

Jester

[Assur]

[quote=Ashock,Oct 29 2004, 02:53 AM]
...perhaps this will help clarify the issue, or in a nutshell... the more things change the more they stay the same.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/200410...22637-6257r.htm

Oh, and isn't this a major enough story to be followed up on by the so-called major networks? I guess Julia Robert's early contractions are more important....
-A


Oh yeah?

Whatever next? Alien transvestites from outer space? The political overlords in Washington totally screwed up and the soldiers have to pick up the trouble. and get the blame! And those are the guys who have Iran on their radarscreens for the time after Bush is re-elected.

you have my pity

[eppie]

I thought that WMD did not refer to conventional arms such as high explosives, since any conventional army will have tonnes of this stuff.  I always assumed it refered to chemical, biological, and nuclear arms.  I'm not trying to discount the story, I'm just trying to get a grip on the terminology.
[right][snapback]58631[/snapback][/right]

True, but the fact is that the pro-war people first started the rumor that all Saddam's WMD's were transported to other countries. What now happened, (the missing radioactive material and high explosives) is indeed something else, and happened during the american occupation.

That Kerry uses this in his campaign...well it is only about that he?. Bush keeps repeating that Kerry would not be a good strong leader. That is also something for which no prove is available (because the only way we will find out is if Kerry wins), and that is one of Bush' strong points...he is very good at selling things that are not true and not proven, and just as with the WMD question also the mud throwing at Kerry works. And of course Kerry does the same.

Yesterday another great Bush interview after the Bin Laden tape.
Bush was saying that terrorists could never influence americans and make them live their live in fear......and that is just what Bush had been trying to do for three years... :blink: scare the american people to be able to perform all his plans to widen the gap between rich and poor.