no October Surprise

Discussion in 'Politics' started by dilloduck, Oct 29, 2004.

  1. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
  2. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616

    Too bad that story has already been largely debunked. The explosives in the video do not have IAEA seals as the RDX explosives would and the IAEA guy they spoke with told them so, they aired the story anyway. :rolleyes:

    Also the amazing story on ABC that shows that it wasn't 377 tons as originally reported but really only 3 tons.

    You can only hope acludem... you can only cross your fingers and wish that the populace doesn't hear the truth of the story. Lies have a great way of backfiring on the person who uses them in their Campaign when they are so readily shown to be false.
     
  3. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    Did you read the link I posted? It's a more recent story from MSNBC, from early this morning. In there, an expert confirms that the seals were there.

    acludem
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    Except their expert is not IAEA himself like the expert that told them that the seals were not theirs.

    Like the courts you can pretty much get an "expert" to say anything you want, I tend to trust the actual source rather than this "expert".
     
  5. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    They quote an IAEA spokesperson in there who confirms they warned the Bushies about security at that site. According to the story on MSNBC, it is still not known what actually happened to the materials stored in the Al Qaqaa bunker.

    acludem
     
  6. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Give it up ACLU-----this last ditch lie to effect the election has been exposed.

    Talk to a ACLUREP if there are any!
     
  7. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616

    Here is an ABC story that puts the level of the explosives at a much lower amount, 3 tons. From 377 to 141 then to 3, seems a little off kilter from the original reporting.

    http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1

    The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing — presumably stolen due to a lack of security — was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility.


    But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.

    The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.

    This means the warning had to be about 3 tons of RDX not 377, this means it is less than .01% of the explosives we have collected and destroyed or kept under gaurd since we have gotten there.
     
  8. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    ACLU----how many MORE tons of ammo would be in the hands of terrorists had the US not invaded?????? This cheap shot shows the flip-flop nature of the dems. First you bitch about no WMDs found and now you wanna bitch that tons of high expolsives were there !!!!!!!!! That hair you split is getting pretty fine !!
     

Share This Page