5/23    http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/23/wedding/index.html
        Video of wedding celebration uncovered. Turns out the Pentagon
        was lying to us. Again.
        \_ Wow this is so lame.  And you know this is the same party and
           these aren't terrorists?  You still never explain all the pre-
           packaged clothing and room for *300* in a barracks.  Whatever.
           Yes, it's a conspiracy to kill all Iraqi partiers because BushCo
           and the evil NeoCons are out to destroy all party life and fun
           in Iraq so Haliburton can sell them American made party trinkets
           to make all of Bush's friends rich.  Yep.
           \_ From the UAV, I'm sure it looked like a high-level insurgents'
              meeting:
              "The wedding videotape shows a dozen white pickup trucks
              speeding through the desert escorting the bridal car -
              decorated with colorful ribbons. The bride wears a
              Western-style white bridal dress and veil. The camera captures
              her stepping out of the car but does not show a close-up."

              I'm not op, but it's possible that the prepackaged clothing was
              stuff these tribal folks were trying to sell, and it was stocked
              in a small warehouse, which was conveniently interpreted to be
              a barracks with room for 300.  Finally, why would insurgents
              drive out in the open in a 12 white-pickup convoy when they knew
              the Americans were always watching?  If you ask me, it was just
              Iraqi civilians who wanted to hold their wedding far from the
              violence, and one of the relatives knew the perfect place to hold
              one.  On the other hand, it could just be really stupid
              insurgents, which is possible.
              \_ Of course there was a wedding *somewhere* in Iraq.  What does
                 this video prove?  That there was a wedding *somewhere* at
                 *sometime*.  You have no idea where or when it happened or
                 if this video has anything to do with it or who the people
                 were in it.  It could easily be wedding by day, terrorism
                 by night.
        \_ article says party ended at night, but attack was around 3am
           \_ They went to sleep after the party.  The first bomb fell while
              they were sleeping.
        \_ AP news from Yahoo!  This is going to be all over CNN soon ...
           just in time for Bush's speech on Monday night!
           Story:      http://csua.org/u/7f7
           Story 2:    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5045772
           Slideshow:  http://csua.org/u/7f8
        [Below restored from yesterday]
        \_ FYI, Kimmit said U.S. soldiers had seen no dead children at the
           site.  That's because they were all driven to Ramadi.  Kimmit
           notes that is where they filmed the dead children's bodies.
           Now before you go on with a theory about insurgents digging up
           children's bodies and splashing pig's blood on them or asking
           them to sacrifice their lives for Allah, please think before you
           write.  Children were very likely killed in the attack.  Kimmit's
           strongest argument, if it really was a high-level meeting of
           anti-coalition forces, is "Bad people have parties too" at which
           there were women and children.
           \_ How the hell do you know?  This is exactly how Jenin played
              out - remember that one?  The military does not willy nilly
              attack with Cobra gun ships and AC-130s in the middle of
              the night.  Sites are scoped for several days if not weeks
              and targetting has to be approved up the chain of command.
              An official has said as much about this incident as well.
              Why the 2 million dinar, sat com equipment, foreign
              passports and weapons caches at a wedding?
              \_ Note I never said it wasn't an insurgents' party.  All I am
                 claiming is that children very likely died in the attack.
                 Do you know how much "2 million dinar" is?  Do you know that
                 "sat com equipment" is one satellite cell phone?  Do you know
                 if Kimmit ever said weapons "cache"?
           \_ "were very likely" "were driven to Ramadi" is speculative
              noise, at best.  How do you explain the barracks for 300, the
              hundreds of pre-bundled Iraqi clothing piles so foreigners can
              blend in with local styles, and all the rest?  Hey, maybe there
              were dead children.  Maybe it really was a wedding.  It was
              still a terrorist site for moving in foreign terrorists and it
              was appropriate to blow it up and kill whoever was there.  If it
              was Osama's wedding and women and children got killed would you
              cry over that?  And frankly I don't understand the problem with
              killing women and children since we've seen plenty of both who
              are doing their best to kill just like the men.  When you pick
              up a gun, wear a bomb belt or fire from a holy site you, the
              place you're standing and everyone around you become legit
              targets.  This isn't a video game or a mother goose story.
              \_ Note I never said it wasn't an insurgents' party.  All I am
                 claiming is that children very likely died in the attack.
                 I urge you to think about where all the children's bodies
                 came from -- don't you think some Iraqi would have said
                 something by now if they were like fake children, old footage,
                 or something?  Many people, including reporters, saw the dead
                 bodies at Ramadi.  This is not "speculative noise".  My
                 "problem" is that Kimmit is being disingenuous when he says
                 dead children were never observed at the site.
                 \_ No I dont think some Iraqi would have said a thing and if
                    they did say anything that backed the Bush admin, you
                    wouldn't hear about it from CNN/Reuters/AP, etc.
                    \_ Anyway, the AP news article I posted should show
                       more concretely that this wasn't faked.  It's a three-
                       hour wedding video, for chrissakes.
                       \_ Which means nothing.  When was it taken and where?
                          There's nothing more than a wedding video which
                          proves what?  Iraqis get married.
        \_ He never lied.  Like I wrote a while ago on motd:
           "\_ Couldn't it have been anti-coalition forces holding a wedding
               party at a foreign fighters' safe house?"
           He did say that it could have been a party thrown by bad guys, and
           now the video's out, that's probably going to be his primary line
           now.
           \_ Video?  Damn you're so gullible it hurts.
              \_ troll or moron
                 \_ idiot.  the video proves nothing.  neither troll nor
                    moron.