THE ANSWER TO TALKING POINT about missing = 1/1000 of "400,000" tons

[BUSHOUT]

Most of you probably just saw the pentagon news conference.

I didn't count now many times that suit mentioned that these explosives represent ONLY 1/1000th of the 400,000 tons that has been captured/destroyed....from among the 10,000 weapons sites they've found. He's shilling for Bush, obviously.
These numbers are all designed to downplay these explosives.

What we need to know about the 400,000 tons number is what kinds of things are included in it? 400,000 tons of guns, ammo, artilery, anti-aircraft guns, tanks, big old rusty bombs?? You get the idea.

But even MORE IMPORTANTLY is to REMEMBER AND REMIND people that a very short time ago an IAEA spokesperson was quoted as saying that Al-Qaqaa
represented:

"the main high explosives storage facility in Iraq"

It was THE MAIN FACILITY and it was NOT guarded properly.

It was the facility that the IAEA warned the Bush administration of before AND after the invasion.

Multiple witnesses have testified about looting. The Iraqi witnesses detailed by the NYT have been largely ignored. The NYT described what sounded like trustworthy witnesses to me, but maybe they get ignored because they're Iraqis. Embedded reporters and soldiers report looking also, so it's moot.

After the video was taken of the IAEA bunker being opened, the embedded reporter reported they left the place unlocked and without guard. Iraq was a place rife with poor people who were so desperate to loot anything they would strip tanks to the bone. OF COURSE THEY'D ENTER THESE UNLOCKED BUNKERS AND STEAL EXPLOSIVES!!

Aaron Brown said the story is over, and he was correct. The rest is deflection and denial meant to help Bush.

/rant

[dogtag]

1. It doesn't really matter what was said at the press

conference...the repug talking heads will be out in force tonight telling us what they say the major said...

The news channels will only short short clips of the actual event making it easy for the spinners to spread their lies...Rove is working on the memo now.

[Longhorn]

2. Another way to look at it (math-wise):

If less than a pound of that type of explosives was used to bring down the Pan-Am flight over Scotland, then there was enough missing from Al Qaqaa to bring down 760,000 planes!

[xxqqqzme]

3. it may B 1/1000th

but it will explode 100%.

[truthpusher]

4. that 1/1000th can take down every airliner on the planet

according to Wolf Blitzer - it took less than one pound to bring down Locherbee.

Also, it may be 1/1000 of the explosives; tell that to the soldier who had 50% of his limbs blown off.

[tabasco]

5. That's right, they are not talking about high explosives.

This is the weakest talking point of them all. The weight of materiel they are talking about includes every conceivable military item, not just high explosives. The right is clearly attempting to deceive the American public, which they consider to be idiots.

Plus I doubt the numbers they recite. In my Army service, my unit uncovered many weapons caches. We never sent them anywhere to be weighed. We counted up the number and type (mostly rifles and machine guns) and then sent them to be destroyed.

[BUSHOUT]

8. I think it's their strongest talking point. If people don't understand it

they will consider the missing amount to be insignificant.

It speaks directly to the dishonesty and dodging that's going on, so it's important for these 400,000 tons of undetailed munitions to be put in thier correct perspective alongside the 300+ tons of high-grade explosives which were in a facility which the IAEA has called

"the main high explosives storage facility in Iraq"

[LoZoccolo]

6. Bush* himself said during the debates, we only have to be wrong once...

...for the terrorists to attack us successfully.

[MercutioATC]

7. They said 10 pounds of RDX can take out a Bradley.

A Bradley carries 9 soldiers...3 crew and 6 infantrymen.

A ton would destroy 200 Bradleys, or 1800 men.

In the press conference Rummy's talking head said there were "as little as 5 tons" there. That's BS, but let's use his MINIMUM number.

5 tons would destroy 1000 Bradleys, killing 9000 of our soldiers.





...but it's still "only 1/1000th of what we've found"

[BUSHOUT]

14. Yes yes yes...but the public will be more forgiving if they swallow

the idea that these were 1/1000 of an equally dangerous bunck of weapons captured or destroyed.

They will get the false impression that Bush wants them to get...that they did a good job securing weapons and these were just a miniscule percentage of the total...so we should forgive them.

Memorize the quote from the IAEA:
Al-Qaqaa was "the main high explosives storage facility in Iraq"
and that's because of all the RDX/HMX.

The stuff shouldn't even be COMPARED to mulitions and ammo and whatever else they're talking about when they mention 400,000 tons, yet it is being compared...and will continue to be.
Over and over and over by every rightwing talking head you see.

[MercutioATC]

17. I realize that and i agree. That's why the focus should be

stressing that the "1/1000th" was enough to kill 9000 soldiers...and Bush considers that acceptable when "we have to be right all of the time and the terrorists only have to be right once".

The fact that the 400,000 ton number includes a lot of steel (in the form of tanks and guns) is valid, but most people just won't hear it.

[BUSHOUT]

18. Can't we focus on both?

Tell people that you can't compare these 300+ tons of HDX to the other 400,000 tones of lesser ordinance, munitions, and vehicles.

AND

These 300+ tons of HDX are enough to bring down 700,000 Pan-Am flights or make 40,000 EID's

YOu only need a few pounds for an IED.

[Brotherjohn]

9. I believe the IAEA has said these aren't just ANY explosives.

They are compact, very stable, and can do great damage. Just the thing terrorists would want to get their hands on.

I'm betting most of the "400,000 tons" (if that's even true) is old shells, mines and such. The way they mention it, I think it also includes guns and anything that could be classified as weapons at all.

Sure you could set up crude car bombs and roadside bombs with that stuff, but you could level whole neighborhoods with the high explosives in question.

[RuleofLaw]

10. Tommy Franks Incompetent

Now I understand why Ret. General Tommy Franks is campaigning for Bush*. This was was his responsibility, and he has been proved to be totally incompetent. He planned the invasion and screwed it up. As the military leader he was responsible for the execution of the invasion. Even I, with no military experience knows, that when you go to war, you make sure that captured ammunition does not fall into the hands of the enemy.

I do not think military history will treat General Franks kindly.

[newyawker99]

19. Hi danishcycle!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Misunderestimator]

11. Simple: Would they leave ONE nuclear bomb after removing 999

And think that that would be ok?

[Cat Atomic]

12. They can spin it all they like, but they're still playing defense.

So it's a win no matter what.

[treading_water]

13. "We have to be right 100% of the time....

They only have to be right once."

[BUSHOUT]

15. EMAIL THE MEDIA ON THIS PLEASE!!

Ask them why they allow the comparison to be made between these tons of high explosives and 400,000 tons of unknown weapons which may include tanks and big guns and conventional shells.

Tell them the IAEA considered this to be
"the main high explosives storage facility in Iraq"
so it can't really be compared to these 10,000 sites the Pentagon keeps mentioning without description.
This was "THE MAIN HIGH EXPLOSIVES STORAGE FACILITY IN IRAQ" according to the IAEA.

[charlie]

16. The Madrid bombings only used 100kg

of a lesser explosive.

3500 Madrids = 700,000 deaths.