« The Al Qaqaa Video | Main | The Pluses and Minuses of a group blog »

Some people will believe anything

The left side of the blogosphere is going loco over this KSTP TV report. Supposedly there is video that PROVES the explosives were at Al Qa Qaa AFTER the fall of Baghdad.

One of my pals on the left called it a "slam dunk."

They have a rather wanting story on KSTP but it also made Paula Zahn. (CNN)

It seems the story has a few problems...

Zahn had the reporter on and after saying he "almost certainly" was at Al Qaa Qa, he then backed away from that remark a bit:

Zahn: First of all, Dean, are you convinced of the fact that you actually were at the al Qa Qaa weapons site?


I think in terms [of whatever] I've been able to learn about where it is, just how big it is and where it is in relation to the place that we were camped with the 101st Airborne, I don't think there's any question that we were in some part of the al Qa Qaa compound.

So he did not know where he was at the time the footage was shot. Not surprising, he's not from there after all and let's review, it's a freaking desert.. But even after coming home and seeing it on the map, he still can't confirm where he was. (But he is more sure in this interview than his station was... More on that in a minute.)

After showing the "smoking gun" video, Zahn interviews an IAEA weapons inspector.

ZAHN: Let's check in with Michael for a moment here.

What do you make of these highly conflicting stories? You hear Dean's account. We know the date is on that tape. It's encrypted on the tape. So, on one hand, that would seem to indicate that some of those weapons were there after the war began, and yet, the Pentagon today releases a satellite photo that they claim was taken two days before the war got under way showing activity which appear to be trucks perhaps maybe moving some of these materials away from the site.

MICHAEL LYSOBEY, FORMER WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Well, the materials at that site or the materials that I saw in the video are not necessarily the HMX, which is the high explosive used in a nuclear implosion device.

What we saw in the tape were a bunch of barrels and a bunch of explosive caps. Al Qa Qaa is an explosives facility. So that's what we'd expect to see. The explosives that we're worried about, we don't know. This isn't definitive proof that those explosives were there.

Zahn was notably deflated.

Not only could the guy not confirm where he was, the weapons inspector was underwhelmed. So much for the slam dunk.

But now let me turn my attention to the report from the affiliate.

They have video CNN decided not to run. (and I have to winder why.)

They tried hard -a little too hard- to go for the melodrama and make it seem like news. A rather obvious indicator they don't have much.

On their website, they hype (in a different typeface) the fact that the reporter saw some guys in a lone pickup truck.

"At one point, there was a group of Iraqis driving around in a pickup truck," said former†5 EYEWITNESS NEWS†reporter Dean Staley. "We were worried they might come near us."

OK, so because people actually live in Iraq, that is dispositive proof that the entire lot of weapons was left there and it was later looted. Yeah, right. Like 3 guys in a single pick truck moved a few hundred tons explosives. Sigh.

There was another laughable quote in the report.

"Apparently two soldiers had gone in to these bunkers, lit a match for light and the fumes or powder... whatever it was, exploded and burned their clothes off,"

AH- The old "lit a match in an ammo dump and burned all my clothes off" story. That one impresses all the girls.

Anyone who read the original NY Times piece knows that one of the advantages of this stuff it that it is very stable and you need special blasting caps to set it off. You can't set it off with matches. That is preposterous hyping of a rumor that is laughable to anyone who knows even the slightest bit about explosives. The fact the station is trying this hard to make news is telling.

But on the video CNN decided not to run, they have the biggest baddest bombshell of them all. They have a few seconds of video that shows a single closed door with a tag that looks very similar to an IAEA tag.

We have no idea where this door was or what is behind it but by golly it's proof!

They never show us what is or is not behind the door, so we don't know if it was the right bunker and if it was, how much of the material was removed thru the backdoor.

After working entirely too hard at their Dan Rather "This is Dramatic" impression...

A 5 Eyewitness News crew in Iraq may have been just a door away from materials that could be used to detonate nuclear weapons.

they slip something in at the very end that they hope you won't notice....

5 EYEWITNESS NEWS and experts across the country are working to learn more from these pictures and find out exactly†just how close they were to Al Qaqaa.

hmmm more "experts" huh...

So the sum total of this story, when you cut thru the hyperbole, is that some TV station has a few seconds of video of something that looks similar to an IAEA tag taken somewhere in Iraq but we're not really sure where.

Yeah man- Slam Dunk.

Update In a later version, the station stressed they Really thought they are at Al Qaa Qa. And they are trying to make the case that the drums we see are the explosives in question. But they did stress that it is unknown at this time.

Curiously, they did not show the footage of the supposed seal.

Time will tell, but we do know this... Anyone who says this is a "slam dunk" is way ahead of the facts on this one.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Some people will believe anything:

» The Spoons Experience linked with THE MSM FIGHTS BACK

» RIGHT ON RED >> linked with The KSTP Report

» The Truth Laid Bear linked with Explosivesgate Roundup: Day IV

» Say Anything linked with Photos Of Explosives Not Conclusive

» ~Neophyte Pundit~ linked with Friday Morning Reads

» Outside The Beltway linked with Video: Explosives Went Missing After War

» The Key Monk linked with ABC's video? No, check the photos

» The Conservative Cat linked with An Explosive Summary

» protein wisdom linked with The Latest from the land of Qakaa

» QandO linked with NYTroGate 3

Comments (15)

I am so totally more accept... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

I am so totally more acceptable of being questioned when referred to as a friend instead of a jackass. Thanks :-)

Just to stir things up, Bil... (Below threshold)

Just to stir things up, Bill...

Paul didn't call you a friend, he called you a pal. Of note, when I was a kid in Texas, PAL wasn't a word, it was a TLA (three-letter acronym): Personal Ass Licker.

I don't know if this convention made it across the state line to Louisiana or not. ;)

Boyd,Haha. If I h... (Below threshold)
Bill K:


Haha. If I had to put money on which one he meant, I wouldn't know what to do.

ROFLMAO... (Below threshold)


Solid job; excellent fiskin... (Below threshold)
Tom von Gremp:

Solid job; excellent fisking of what has become Shameless. The old grey mare, she ain't what she used to be... and the Disney affiliate, as you point out, working overtime for some serious airtime.

15 seconds for them is over.

That recollection about the... (Below threshold)

That recollection about the match set off my BS meter as well. We've been asked to believe some stupid things, but trained soldiers with at worst rudimentary explosives training walked into a dark weapons bunker and lit a freakin' match?! There are so many things wrong with that story I can't believe adults are actually discussing it. Ok, I can. Burned off their flame-resistant JSLIST uniforms? Without blowing up everything else in the munition-stuffed bunker? They had matches they were willing to waste early in a deployment, but no flashlights or nightvision goggles attached to their helmets?

It's hard to take anything in that report seriously after reading that.

Lefties running around sayi... (Below threshold)

Lefties running around saying "slam dunk" on a flimsy story, like Tenet... oh the irony.

If the RDX/HDX was still th... (Below threshold)

If the RDX/HDX was still there, then what did the Heavy Trucks in the satellite photos take away? I presume that Saddam would have taken away the WMDs first.

What SomeJoe and Boyd wrote... (Below threshold)

What SomeJoe and Boyd wrote (^^).

You have to *get* the suggested inflection of the use of the word, "pal," in writing. It's a sorta explosive sounding "p" and the rest of the word has a slight jabbing tone to it.

SomeJoe...I laughed aloud at the perfectness of what you describe, the obviousness of what you observe, the preposterousness of what the media tried to perpetuate in that one aspect of 'the story' alone.

Maybe the "two soldiers" were wearing flipflops, towing red wagons behind them, looking for bottles to recycle. I mean, if you believe 'the story,' you may as well believe the two guys were eight year olds, set for the beach.

Yes, I wonder what those tr... (Below threshold)

Yes, I wonder what those trucks were removing from an explosives dump. Perhaps they were removing toys for Saddam's toys-for-tots program. Perhaps truckloads of shoes? Perhaps the intellectual giants of the Left and their mouthpieces in the MSM can determine what the Iraqis removed from an ammo dump in the middle of the desert. Pretty soon we'll be examining Bush's dental records again.

Paula Zahn still has great ... (Below threshold)
Mrs. Davis:

Paula Zahn still has great legs.

I can't remember exactly. ... (Below threshold)

I can't remember exactly. Didn't Geraldo find an IAEA seal on Al Capone's safe?

I wonder why no one seems t... (Below threshold)

I wonder why no one seems to think it relevant that the president went to war because of weapons (WMD's, which have not been found), but didn't feel it was necessary to secure weapons stores the admin had been previously apprised of? The issue isn't the amount of weapons or when they disappeared; the issue is why would you ignore information telling you about weapons and where they were when that was, in fact, one of your major justifiactions for going to war?

Later on Paula Zahn's show ... (Below threshold)

Later on Paula Zahn's show she was talking to their "poltical editor". He commented that this last week Kerry was much more on the defensive and Bush on the offensive.

Paula abruptly interrupted "Come on! How can you say that with this missing explosives story out there?"

I see many questions about ... (Below threshold)

I see many questions about what the heavy trucks were taking away from Qa Qaa. Perhaps the question should be, what had they just brought in?

Too many ifs, ands buts and maybes in this story for Kerry to be using it as he is.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright ¬© 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy