PDA

View Full Version : 380 Tons of Explosives!



ljb5
10-25-2004, 11:14 AM
From the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html?oref=login&oref=login&pagewanted=all)


nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives...are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations...

The huge facility...was supposed to be under American military control...

White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year.

The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured...Bush was too busy to guard the explosives, but he guarded the Oil Ministry.

If any of these explosives are used against American troops -- or civilians -- it will be more blood on Bush's hands.

km gresham
10-25-2004, 11:18 AM
When did they disappear? Anyway, I thought there weren't any stockpiles of weapons.

brad9798
10-25-2004, 11:20 AM
Thanks for keeping us so informed in your typical selfless manner!!

Your tireless non-partison :rolleyes: crusade to make the world a better place is so appreciated by the many, otherwise ignorant and uninformed, folks that frequent this forum!

Keep up the good work.

ljb5
10-25-2004, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by km gresham:
When did they disappear? Anyway, I thought there weren't any stockpiles of weapons.The article says clearly that they vanished "sometime after the American-led invasion last year." No one knows exactly when.

You are wrong. There were no stockpiles of WMDs.

These are conventional weapons. That is also explained in the article.

paladin
10-25-2004, 11:25 AM
Those idiots should have known the instance that the facility was breeched. It was equipped with both landline and satellite alarms that were monitored in the U.S. Even if the system was turned off, within 30 seconds the polling system would have reprted a negative reply from the transponder....

ljb5
10-25-2004, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by brad9798:
Thanks for keeping us so informed in your typical selfless manner!!

Your tireless non-partison :rolleyes: crusade to make the world a better place is so appreciated by the many, otherwise ignorant and uninformed, folks that frequent this forum!

Keep up the good work.Brad, the policy of ignoring the subject didn't seem to work very well. I thought maybe we should try something else.

Bush ignored the explosives. He says he's on a "tireless, non-partisan crusade to make the world a safter place." Because of his incompetence, there are unsecured explosives which could be used against our troops. Pehaps they already have.

Billy Bones
10-25-2004, 11:28 AM
If any of these explosives are used against American troops -- or civilians -- it will be more blood on Bush's hands.

So then, by admitting that actions in the future can be traced back to antecedent actions or inactions in the past, you thus agree that blame for 9/11 lies entirely at the feet of the Clinton administration which subborned foreign policy to the United Nations and disregarded clear intelligence pointing to the likelihood of such an event occurring.

brad9798
10-25-2004, 11:29 AM
I could do some mass destruction with 380 pounds (edited for typo- I meant TONS) of explosives ...

Definitively, they are not WMDs in and of themselves ... but who's kidding whom? ;)

[ 10-25-2004, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: brad9798 ]

ljb5
10-25-2004, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by brad9798:
I could do some mass destruction with 380 pounds of explosives ...

Definitively, they are not WMDs in and of themselves ... but who's kidding whom? ;) Fine -- you want to believe these are WMDs. (they aren't NCB (nuclear, chemical or biological), but for the sake of argument....)

Okay, now the headline is "Bush's fails to secure WMDs."

Does that make it better? We send a hundred thousand troops halfway round the world. A thousand of them get killed -- for what? To secure WMDs. And then when we get there, what do we do? Secure the Oil Ministry and let the WMDs go.

I don't think that helps the situation.

km gresham
10-25-2004, 11:36 AM
So these are weapons of minimal destruction? What's the worry, then?

19 month old news and there is no definitive time when the weapons went missing. I guess you can blame President Bush, though, if you'd like.

We secured the oil ministry so we could enjoy these record low gas prices. :rolleyes:

[ 10-25-2004, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: km gresham ]

Kev Smyth
10-25-2004, 11:49 AM
Who cares if they're missing- Kerry will keep us safe! Check this out:

Kerry Offers Global 'Guarantee': No More Terror Attacks
John Kerry claimed Monday that if he's elected president he'll prevent all future terrorist attacks both inside the U.S. and around the world.
"I do know that America will be safe [from terrorist attack] under my leadership," Kerry boasted to NBC "Today Show" host Katie Couric.

Plus, get this: The lame will stand up and walk from their wheel chairs, the blind will see, and Teresa will party like it's 1999!! :D ;) :D

Too bad he'll never see the inside of the oval office again.... :( :D

George.
10-25-2004, 12:01 PM
The so -called conservatives are AMAZING! In response to the news item:

- They claim that these conventional explosives are WMD or their equivalent;

- They nevertheless claim they are irrelevant;

- They change the subject!

ljb5
10-25-2004, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by km gresham:
So these are weapons of minimal destruction? What's the worry, then?Call it whatever the heck you want. If some of this explodes in a car bomb next to you, you'll be just as dead.

This isn't "19 months old news."

Condi Rice just found out last month. The White House was unable to confirm that Bush had been told before this weekend.

Seems the Commander in Chief is a little out of the loop. The buck always stops elsewhere, doesn't it?

Neocons care less about troop safety than they do about shielding Bush from blame.

Kev Smyth
10-25-2004, 12:34 PM
Vote for Kerry- he has PROMISED to keep us, and the rest of the world safe- NO MORE TERRORIST ATTACKS, EVER!! :D :D

Thank you, jlb5, for helping us to see the light. :rolleyes: How stupid does Kerry think we are?

P.S.- did you know those nasty terrorists have rocket launchers and automatic weapons too!?! Holy crap, Batman!! :eek: :D :eek: Why did Bush let them have guns and stuff?

[ 10-25-2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Kev Smyth ]

NormMessinger
10-25-2004, 01:11 PM
De Nile isn't just a river in Egypt. De Lusinal may be a river in Missouri or Texas.

Hey, did ya'all miss me?

Ross M
10-25-2004, 01:20 PM
"Hey, did ya'all miss me?"

Absolutely!

Gotta agree with LJB on this one - 836,000 lbs of HMX, RDX and PETN sounds like a major issue to me. Somebody screwed this up badly, and I hope to see heads rolling soon (please spare me the next Tuesday jokes).

Ross

imported_Steven Bauer
10-25-2004, 01:30 PM
Hey Norm, where ya been?

Steven

Chris Coose
10-25-2004, 01:46 PM
You'd think that if the dubbya was really interested in WMD's he'd have gone to these identified stock piles to secure them and maybe trot out the evidence, rather than rushing to secure the pipe lines.

Pipe lines don't kill and mame soldiers but 350 tons of hot weapons sure will.

He is a totally incompetent warior. He should be removed immediately before one more American is killed protecting his business plan.

You dubbya apologists are truely wacky. This one has already blown up in your faces and you still defend the madman.

Wild Wassa
10-25-2004, 02:01 PM
Norm, I held my breath ... I've now discovered a new shade of blue thanks to your absence and cyanosis.

Just a simple tip for the Republicans, as I feel pathetically sorry for them, as they can't seem to get a grip on any issue ... without being paranoid, mean spirited, seriously deluded and deliberately misleading.

This is the tip: When posting on such topics as this and you borrow each other's neurone to help you post, you need to switch them both on ... try not to forget. I hope this helps the slow learners let alone the idiots clutching for anything that might be their only security blanket.

The world has a war to fight against terrorism, I like how bush is sharing and spreading it all around. 180 tonnes? (although 360 tons sounds more impressive) of explosives, should help his cause ... thankyou.

Warren.

ps, What is the definition of a weed? A shrub where it is not wanted ... so send him to Mars, he seems keen. Then we can say, "There isn't life on Mars, just a low life on Mars."

[ 10-26-2004, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

Shang
10-25-2004, 02:29 PM
...And how do we know that several thousand pounds of the missing explosives are not sitting in one of the many uninspected cargo containers in a downtown U.S.A. warehouse, waiting for the right moment to celebrate Osama's birthday?

Thanks for securing the Iraqi oil facilities, Mr. President...Mission Accomplished?

Alan D. Hyde
10-25-2004, 02:41 PM
This thread is assinine.

What would a similar thread on Abraham Lincoln have looked like in early 1863? Would you soon, in your Monday morning wisdom, be looking to George McClellan to do better?

War are not won by micro-management from the Oval Office, but rather by picking and supporting good officers who DESPITE THE MANY MISTAKES, MISJUDGEMENTS, MISUNDERSTANDINGS, AND SET-BACKS WHICH ARE AN INEVITABLE PART OF WAR, will lead on and get the job done. Back our President; back our troops: when the going gets tough the tough get going. Reject the gigolo: the only time he's been on the winning side was when he joined with his new friends, the VietCong.

Alan

Kev Smyth
10-25-2004, 02:50 PM
There's no point trying to reason with them Alan- the only thing that matters is "ABB!"

Chris Coose
10-25-2004, 02:50 PM
Monday morning wisdom Monday morning wisdom, you say?
Day after day the dubbya's mishandling of this adventure has been clearly related as a deadly failure in motive, planning, communication, intelligence, alliances, propoganda and mission.

It lands on his desk and he makes jokes today about terists, he tells us he had other priorities.

An absolute failure way beyond this morning's judgement.

Chris Coose
10-25-2004, 02:53 PM
the only thing that matters is "ABB!" You have that in a nutshell.

Alan D. Hyde
10-25-2004, 02:58 PM
It's foolish to be led by one's idee fixe out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Alan

Chris Coose
10-25-2004, 03:01 PM
I'm looking to turn off the flames.

Alan D. Hyde
10-25-2004, 03:08 PM
Then you must extirpate the terrorists.

Pirata est hostis humani generis. Sir Edward Coke

Alan

ljb5
10-25-2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
War are not won by micro-management from the Oval Office, but rather by picking and supporting good officers who DESPITE THE MANY MISTAKES, MISJUDGEMENTS, MISUNDERSTANDINGS, AND SET-BACKS WHICH ARE AN INEVITABLE PART OF WAR, will lead on and get the job done. The buck always stops elsewhere, doesn't it?

Alan -- the "good officers" told Bush that we needed more troops on the ground. Bush ignored them.

With more troops, it would have been possible to guard the explosives.

It's funny how conservatives have two answers for everything. If it's going well, they say it's all Bush -- and that Kerry wouldn't have been nearly as good.

If it's going badly, they say that Bush really isn't in charge and Kerry would have been just as bad.

So Alan, if the war isn't managed from the Oval Office, I guess it doesn't matter much who sits there.... Since it doesn't really matter, let's all vote for Kerry.

Billy Bones
10-25-2004, 03:10 PM
Bravo Alan.

I'm just dying to hear how Kerry would do anything different. There seems to be a conspiracy against any declarative statements from the democrats. All I'd need from Kerry is a glimmer of hope that he'd make a positive difference. I'd even settle for a shred of evidence that he isn't the selfish, hypocritical sleazy bastard he comes off as. Just a shred!

Keith Wilson
10-25-2004, 03:11 PM
Alan, you are certainly correct that messiness, setbacks, and mistakes are inevitable in war. The analogy to Abraham Lincoln (aside from the fact that mentioning Bush and Lincoln in the same sentence is ludicrous), fails because the election was held in November of 1864 when things looked rather different. Do you really think things will look better in a year?

Tell us, sir, just what the occupation of Iraq would look like now had it been managed INcompetently? Sorry, Alan, you may call John Kerry all the nasty names you like, but it won't wash. "Leadership" without competence, intelligence, realism, and good judgment is worse than useless. Once we took Baghdad, it became obvious that the militarists had no clue what to do once their rosy projections didn't work out. It's time to let somebody else take a crack at it.

But there's no point in reasoning with them, gentlemen. Bush is God’s Chosen Representative on Earth, and anyone who presumes to disagree is by definition in league with the Devil. :rolleyes:

[ 10-25-2004, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

George.
10-25-2004, 03:12 PM
Repeatedly posted by Alan D. Hyde:


Pirata est hostis humani generis. Sir Edward Coke

I may be wrong, but wasn't that Cicero, or some other Roman back around 150 BC?

[ 10-25-2004, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: George. ]

ljb5
10-25-2004, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
Then you must extirpate the terrorists.
Step 1 would be depriving them of their weapons.

We should guard the explosives. Ooops, too late.

ljb5
10-25-2004, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Billy Bones:
I'm just dying to hear how Kerry would do anything different. Billy,

Kerry has been saying for months, that we should guard the munitions dumps.

He mentioned it several times in the debates.

He said it many times before that.

It's only been in the last 24 hours that we found out how right he was.

Come to think of it, doesn't it seem like a pretty obvious thing to do? Especially since several international groups and the Iraqi governing council told Bush...

Billy Bones
10-25-2004, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by ljb5:


It's funny how conservatives have two answers for everything. If it's going well, they say it's all Bush -- and that Kerry wouldn't have been nearly as good.And liberals seem to have none.




If it's going badly, they say that Bush really isn't in charge and Kerry would have been just as bad.

I notice your choice of tense in that statement. It assumes that Kerry has already lost--how efficient of you to start whining about the results early. I caution you however, that it's still a close race, at least at the popular level, and you'll look pretty silly if Kerry surprises us all and wins.

Wild Wassa
10-25-2004, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
" ... in your Monday morning wisdom."

Wrong time zone Dude.

Warren.

Billy Bones
10-25-2004, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by ljb5:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Billy Bones:
I'm just dying to hear how Kerry would do anything different. Billy,

Kerry has been saying for months, that we should guard the munitions dumps.

</font>[/QUOTE]Bush was VERY RIGHTLY CRITICIZED for micromanaging his cabinet both during his campaign in 2000 and early in his administration. He was an idiot to suggest that he should have direct hiring and firing powers over mid level managers at first within the department of homeland security and then elsewhere. That was a heinous mistake he made which, at least in the area of micromanagement, you now support Kerry for.

Jesus, people. Do you REALLY suppose that someone left ammo dumps wide open? Do you REALLY think that the (nonpartisan) managers in government would leave themselves open for the consequences of such an action, particularly in an election year, if they were to follow those orders? Or MAYBE we don't have the entire picture yet...d'ya think, and are being spun in the most base way?

Jim H
10-25-2004, 03:31 PM
This story dates back to April of 2003.


The explosives could also be used to trigger a nuclear weapon, which was why international nuclear inspectors had kept a watch on the material, and even sealed and locked some of it.Kerry will get 43% of the vote.

George H.
10-25-2004, 03:37 PM
I truly dislike Republicans. It use to be something I could overlook but I just can't anymore. You folks are a bunch of idiots only concerned about your wallets. You all are willing to throw the safety of our country and of the world right out the door if it means you can keep your tax breaks.

[ 10-25-2004, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: George H. ]

brad9798
10-25-2004, 04:14 PM
I stated clearly that 'definitely they are not' WMD's ... can't you clowns read??

And, moreover, do you question that I could not cause mass destruction withb 380 tons of explosives???

Where is that ignoring the obvious, changing the subject ... or, in Norm's assessment- DeLusinal??

It's a serious situation ...

You can't win for losing with the likes of ljb5, et al.

Unlike a$$hole agendas, I'm not after smearing Bush ... it's a mistake that needs to be figured out ...

Anyone making any ASSumptions at this point is an idiot- at minimum.

Donn
10-25-2004, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by George H.:
I truly dislike Republicans. Who cares?

George H.
10-25-2004, 04:26 PM
I guess I struck a nerve. Rich people don't like to hear the truth. It's better to keep em like a mushroom. In the dark and feed em lots of SH!T.

In case anyone is wondering, Brad deleted one of his rants. :rolleyes:

[ 10-25-2004, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: George H. ]

ljb5
10-25-2004, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Billy Bones:
Jesus, people. Do you REALLY suppose that someone left ammo dumps wide open? Apparently, that's exactly what happened.

But then, what do I know? I only get that information from the IAEA, the White House, the UN, the Iraqi Government and all the major news sources of the world.

What do you REALLY suppose happened?

[ 10-25-2004, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

Billy Bones
10-25-2004, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by ljb5:
I only get that information from the IAEA, the White House, the UN, the Iraqi Government and ...

What do you REALLY suppose happened?No, you got your information from the NYT which cherrypicked the information from those sources in the article for you, perhaps honestly, perhaps not.

I do not know what happened, nor do you. You have made some assumptions, and I have some theories based on what I know of how things have worked in the past, but neither of us has enough information to reach a conclusion.

ljb5
10-25-2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Billy Bones:
No, you got your information from the NYT which cherrypicked the information from those sources in the article for you, perhaps honestly, perhaps not. I only posted a link to the NY Times, but I read about eight other articles on the subject.

CNN --- White House says guarding it wasn't their responsibility (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/index.html)

The BBC says that no one wants to take responsibility -- but the Interim gov't asked the U.S. to guard it. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3950493.stm)

The AP says it was "due to lack of security" (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=3&u=/ap/20041025/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iraq)

Most of the articles seem to say that no one has any idea what happened.

I'm certain that if they had been guarded, someone would know.

ljb5
10-25-2004, 05:08 PM
The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041025-1.html) can't give a straight answer about when it happened or who was supposed to be looking after it.

Scott McClellan, keeps saying it happened "sometime after April 9th, 2003."

Of course, that's just his typical mis-direction.

The loss was reported on Oct 10th, 2004.

That leaves a window of 19 months. I think they could probably be more specific if they tried.

More importantly, I think they should have checked in a litte more often than once every 19 months. If it were me, I would have had someone on-site to check constantly. Once a week, at least.

brad9798
10-25-2004, 06:21 PM
Yes- I did Memphis!

I'm learning, slowly but surely not to let negative fools bother me!

High C
10-25-2004, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by George H.:
...feed em lots of SH!T.

In case anyone is wondering, Brad deleted one of his rants. :rolleyes: Perhaps you'd consider doing likewise? Your rants are really stinking up the place.

George Jung
10-25-2004, 07:59 PM
Recognizing that "the buck stops here" , as regards ultimate responsibility, in real world terms, do you really believe it is the responsibility of "this administration" (who is that, George W.? Cheney? Maybe Rumsfeld?) to ensure every detail, whether of the war in Iraq, jobs here, or any other of the milleu that is world events? Give me a break; granted, somebody dropped the ball on guarding those munitions, but I'd suspect some military types are responsible, wouldn't you? The idea that you would check in 'weekly' to see how the dump was holding up is a real hoot, too. Though I guess someone would've known the munitions were missing, a little earlier; how that helps I can't imagine.
Politics and BS as usual. Good troll (Bad troll!)

George.
10-26-2004, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by George Jung:
... do you really believe it is the responsibility of "this administration" (who is that, George W.? Cheney? Maybe Rumsfeld?) to ensure every detail, whether of the war in Iraq, ...Are you serious? They start a war but are not responsible for its "details?"

It was 380 tons of explosives, you know, not 380 grams. Several truckloads. Are you saying a military that simply "loses" that amount of dangerous ordnance has simply let a little detail slip? How often does such an amount of explosives disappear in US ammo dumps? Or in any other semi-organized country, for that matter?

:rolleyes:

RayRay
10-26-2004, 05:49 AM
Dot, and the rest of you leftists. Have you not seen the news this morning? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

People, a reporter with NBC news is stating the weapons cache was removed BEFORE OUR TROOPS HIT IRAQ. :eek: (he was with the troops and saw the warehouse)

This is total spin by the New York Times.

Another dead end for the left.

But, don't look at the news this morning, it'll ruin your fun.

Larry P.
10-26-2004, 06:02 AM
Well mabye little BJ is jumping ugly before all the facts are in.

From CNN.com

NBC News reported that on April 10, 2003, its crew was embedded with the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division when troops arrived at the Al Qaqaa storage facility south of Baghdad.

While the troops found large stockpiles of conventional explosives, they did not find HMX or RDX, the types of powerful explosives that reportedly went missing, according to NBC.

The International Atomic Energy Agency revealed Monday that it had been told two weeks ago by the Iraqi government that 380 tons of HMX and RDX disappeared from Al Qaqaa after Saddam Hussein's government fell.

In a letter to the IAEA dated October 10, Iraq's director of planning, Mohammed Abbas, said the material disappeared sometime after Saddam's regime fell in April 2003, which he attributed to "the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security."

Baghdad fell on April 9, 2003. According to NBC, troops from the 101st Airborne arrived the next day to find that the material was already gone....

full story on CNN.com

Donn
10-26-2004, 06:07 AM
Doesn't matter. Bush should have secured the explosives before the invasion.

Bruce G
10-26-2004, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by Donn:
Doesn't matter. Bush should have secured the explosives before the invasion.:D

RayRay
10-26-2004, 06:31 AM
If this is the dims October surprise....well it certainly is Ollie. tongue.gif

I'll bet the R's have a great one coming. :D

W! Four more years!

km gresham
10-26-2004, 06:32 AM
Just for good measure - more from CNN. Does that count as an acceptable news source around here? ;)


Report: Explosives already gone when
U.S. troops arrived
CNN, by Suzanne Malveaux

The mystery surrounding the disappearance of 380 tons of powerful explosives from a storage depot in Iraq has taken a new twist, after a network embedded with the U.S. military during the invasion of Iraq reported that the material had already vanished by the time American troops arrived.

[ 10-26-2004, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: km gresham ]

RayRay
10-26-2004, 07:04 AM
Yes, the silence is deafening.

What next? Anyone heard that W has a DUI? :D

High C
10-26-2004, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by Donn:
Doesn't matter. Bush should have secured the explosives before the invasion.Damn right he should've! Clinton managed to raise taxes before he became President! ;)

Once again, the media openly campaigning for Kerry.

Once again, it blows up in their faces.

[ 10-26-2004, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: High C ]

brad9798
10-26-2004, 08:21 AM
HEY- ljb5, and the rest of you blinded fools-

Anything to say now???

OOOOPS!

Things are never as you present ljb5 ...

ALL your trickering, misdirection, and wishful posting will NOT get your 'man' elected.

I usually cannot stand gloating ... but for you, and you alone, I can't wait for next week!!!!

Phillip Allen
10-26-2004, 08:23 AM
No...it does not blow up in their faces. Here's the way it works: Take ljb5 as an example, on this thread he has raved and slobbered (IMO) and is now convinced of the loss of the explosives under Bush's watch...a news correction will not make any difference to him...at all! It is one of those "don't confuse me with the facts" sort of things. The damage is done...like a verbal car bomb this sort of "news casting" is indiscriminate and without remorse.

RayRay
10-26-2004, 08:26 AM
5bj's isn't the only one who will ignore these facts. You can lump most of this forum with him....same response.

Billy Bones
10-26-2004, 08:27 AM
Careful, Phillip, in my very recent experience nothing brings out the pod people like the balanced voice of reason!

LeeG
10-26-2004, 08:33 AM
What does David Kay or Duelfer say about the stuff?

George Jung
10-26-2004, 08:49 AM
who could've seen this one coming? tongue.gif

Phillip Allen
10-26-2004, 08:53 AM
I believe that is the point...soft-target

Billy Bones
10-26-2004, 09:08 AM
Good point! That's me then, innit?

Ian McColgin
10-26-2004, 09:16 AM
I looked at the NYT and AP stories and fail to see any spin or confusion.

The HE had been under UN seal as of March 2003. Sortly after that we expelled the UN inspectors and then we invaded.

The Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said that coalition forces searched the facility after the invasion and found nothing under IAEA seal.

The story is that our forces were so convinced that they did not need information from the UN inspectors and so resistant to getting UN help that it was not till October 15th at they knew all that stuff was missing.

Had our forces not been denied IAEA information they might well have:

Moved faster to secure that facility; or

Bombed it to destroy the munitions; or

Captured it outside the facility as 380 tons is quite a bit to hide in a war zone if some one is looking, though apparantly it was easy to hide since no one was looking.

Anything could have happened differently. The story here is that our military on the ground did not know about this till a couple of weeks ago. They should n ot have been deprived of this information.

High C
10-26-2004, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Ian McColgin:
...spin...

km gresham
10-26-2004, 09:21 AM
No kiddin', High C! How's he do that without getting dizzy?

LeeG
10-26-2004, 09:33 AM
High/Karen, what is the spin?

WMD were a threat,,but they're not a threat.
$100's Millions to find WMD with teams led by David Kay after the invasion,,a proponent of the threat of WMD as he was hired by GWI after Desert Storm to remind the American public the threat Saddam presented to the 1992 voters. Kay was a supporter of Khidir Hamza/Chalabis spin. Kay left that job last year as HIS pre-conditions for employment couldn't be kept. Adequate manpower to find WMD was needed to find insurgents.

There is spin,,all around. There's also a big gaping hole in US integrity. The IAEA is simply letting the world know that the US is reaping what it sowed.

ljb5
10-26-2004, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by RayRay:
Dot, and the rest of you leftists. Have you not seen the news this morning? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

People, a reporter with NBC news is stating the weapons cache was removed BEFORE OUR TROOPS HIT IRAQ. :eek: (he was with the troops and saw the warehouse).RayRay (mind if I call you Stan?)-

I haven't seen the article you are referring to.

I did find this article by NBC News (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/)


U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives were intact.

Ian McColgin
10-26-2004, 09:52 AM
Actually, I think there is confusion on just this point. It's fairly clear that the facility was intact, but our military appears not to have known that there were supposed to be 385 tons of HE under UN seal there.

Thus, in good faith, the divergent reports.

If it turns out that our forces found the UN seals intact and that then we managed to let the material slip away, that's certainly worse, but I'm personally leaning towards they just didn't know it was supposed to be there and thus could not have known till mid-October what was missing.

Given the short time between the last UN check and US control of the area, no matter when the Iraqis removed it, it was a very slick bit of work. Our military (forget the politicians and their various spins) will want to know how they got away with it. Field commanders find intelligence, even afteraction intelligence, more useful than wishful thinking.

ljb5
10-26-2004, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Ian McColgin:
Actually, I think there is confusion on just this point. It's fairly clear that the facility was intact, but our military appears not to have known that there were supposed to be 385 tons of HE under UN seal there.The military knew it was there.

Colin Powell mentioned it in his speech to the U.N.

Bush mentioned it several times before the invasion.

The IAEA told the U.S. about it.

Shang
10-26-2004, 09:58 AM
Which spin do you want to believe?

BBC News, Tuesday, 26 October, 2004
...Meanwhile, some US media reports have queried if the theft happened before US troops arrived at the base at al-Qaqaa.
NBC television reported that one of its correspondents was embedded with the 101st Airborne Division which temporarily took control of the base on 10 April 2003 but did not find any of the explosives.
However, other US outlets, including NBC's own news website, quoted Pentagon officials who said a search of the site after the US-led invasion had revealed the explosives to be intact. [emphisis added]

ljb5
10-26-2004, 10:12 AM
If it did happen 18 months ago, why did Condi only learn about it last month?

Why did Bush only learn about it last week?

The White House said they directed the Iraqi Survey Group to look into it -- last month.

And how come no one can post a link to these reports from NBC News? I've looked for them, but I can't find it.

I'd like to read the whole report for myself. I don't trust Newsmax to "filter" the news for me.

[ 10-26-2004, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

Billy Bones
10-26-2004, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Shang:
Which spin do you want to believe?

BBC News, Tuesday, 26 October, 2004
...Meanwhile, some US media reports have queried if the theft happened before US troops arrived at the base at al-Qaqaa.
NBC television reported that one of its correspondents was embedded with the 101st Airborne Division which temporarily took control of the base on 10 April 2003 but did not find any of the explosives.
However, other US outlets, including NBC's own news website, quoted Pentagon officials who said a search of the site after the US-led invasion had revealed the explosives to be intact. [emphisis added]Good lord, reporters interviewing reporters interviewing reporters...

You know, there may have been something suspicious in that story, but if you seek the truth you won't find it where you're looking. And I would not overlook the fact that 80% or more of the left-of-center media have let it the issue drop, if I were you. I used to have a Brit mentor who was fond of saying 'You can't polish a turd.'

Wild Wassa
10-26-2004, 10:26 AM
Do you remember when Powell went to the UN and said that the US had identified 1200 possible WOMD sites with several hundred definitely identified sites?

Al Qaqaa is only one that has been looted, what is the evil Administration not telling the World about the others? ... I can only presume that the other 'definite' sites have been well and truly secured by the Coalition ... truly pathetic?

What will the Republicans excuse be next week?

On the news reports it is reported that it is 380 metric tons, so that is a 380 tonnes?

Warren.

[ 10-26-2004, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

Phillip Allen
10-26-2004, 10:32 AM
A metric tonn(e) is 4ooo pounds???

Wild Wassa
10-26-2004, 10:38 AM
I think a tonne is about 10% heavier than a ton, without going to conversion table to check.

ljb5
10-26-2004, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Phillip Allen:
A metric tonn(e) is 4ooo pounds???No, a metric ton is 1000 kg or 2204.6 pounds

A ton is 2000 lbs.

380 tons is 345 metric tons.

George.
10-26-2004, 10:49 AM
BBC News, Tuesday, 26 October, 2004
...Meanwhile, some US media reports have queried if the theft happened before US troops arrived at the base at al-Qaqaa.
NBC television reported that one of its correspondents was embedded with the 101st Airborne Division which temporarily took control of the base on 10 April 2003 but did not find any of the explosives.
However, other US outlets, including NBC's own news website, quoted Pentagon officials who said a search of the site after the US-led invasion had revealed the explosives to be intact. [/b]So we still don't know when the explosives disappeared - but someone is claiming it was before the invasion, because some imbedded reporter didn't see them when he briefly stopped by al-Qaqaa.

Now, let's see: no WMD have been found by huge teams of inspectors scouring Iraq for 18 months, spending heaps of cash - but some people still say that doesn't prove they aren't there.

An imbedded reporter and his unit get a quick look at this huge ammo dump and don't happen to see the explosives in question - and the same people say that definitely proves they were not there.

Hmmmm...

ljb5
10-26-2004, 11:06 AM
The story gets stranger (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/)


An NBC News crew that accompanied U.S. soldiers who seized the Al-Qaqaa base three weeks into the war in Iraq reported that troops discovered significant stockpiles of bombs, but no sign of the missing HMX and RDX explosives.Okay, so maybe the HMX and RDX was already gone --- but what about these "significant stockpiles of bombs?" Is it okay to leave those unguarded?


It remains unclear, however, how extensively the U.S. forces searched the site.Just because they didn't see the HMX and RDX doesn't mean that it wasn't there.


U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives...were intact.
The materials were lost through “the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security,” the letter said. The letter informed the IAEA that since Sept. 4, 2003...So they were there in Sept 2003.

Apparently, Newsmax filtered this story quite a lot.

brad9798
10-26-2004, 11:17 AM
Hmmm, I guess I'll change my vote next week! Again, thanks for all your tireless, selfless work ljb5! ;)

Kev Smyth
10-26-2004, 11:27 AM
"An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.

According to NBCNEWS, the explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived."

The key phrase here is " one day after the "liberation of Iraq." Sounds like we were there on day 2. Can't beat that. ;)

LeeG
10-26-2004, 12:19 PM
at least you guys aren't talking about the Swift Boat Vets...1 pt. for reality based news.

Amy Robach: And it's still unclear exactly when those explosives disappeared. Here to help shed some light on that question is Lai Ling. She was part of an NBC news crew that traveled to that facility with the 101st Airborne Division back in April of 2003. Lai Ling, can you set the stage for us? What was the situation like when you went into the area?
Lai Ling Jew: When we went into the area, we were actually leaving Karbala and we were initially heading to Baghdad with the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. The situation in Baghdad, the Third Infantry Division had taken over Baghdad and so they were trying to carve up the area that the 101st Airborne Division would be in charge of. Um, as a result, they had trouble figuring out who was going to take up what piece of Baghdad. They sent us over to this area in Iskanderia. We didn't know it as the Qaqaa facility at that point but when they did bring us over there we stayed there for quite a while. Almost, we stayed overnight, almost 24 hours. And we walked around, we saw the bunkers that had been bombed, and that exposed all of the ordinances that just lied dormant on the desert.

AR: Was there a search at all underway or was, did a search ensue for explosives once you got there during that 24-hour period?

LLJ: No. There wasn't a search. The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around. But as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons, nothing to keep looters away. But there was – at that point the roads were shut off. So it would have been very difficult, I believe, for the looters to get there.

AR: And there was no talk of securing the area after you left. There was no discussion of that?

LLJ: Not for the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. They were -- once they were in Baghdad, it was all about Baghdad, you know, and then they ended up moving north to Mosul. Once we left the area, that was the last that the brigade had anything to do with the area.

AR: Well, Lai Ling Jew, thank you so much for shedding some light into that situation. We appreciate it.

George.
10-26-2004, 12:28 PM
There wasn't a search. The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. So they didn't see anything during a pit stop, therefore it wasn't there?

But David Kay et al didn't find anything during 18 months of searches , but it may still be there?

Neocons... :rolleyes:

LeeG
10-26-2004, 12:34 PM
it's the NEW post-realism, faith-based reality for secularists,or West Texas Wahabbism. YEEEEHAAAA!

http://www.counterpunch.org/werther10252004.html

George.
10-26-2004, 12:36 PM
OK, all you who gloated over the apparent implosion of the explosives story - it looks like your rebuttal is taking on water fast.

Is there more to this than an embedded reporter happening to not have seen the explosives, during what he himself refers to as a "pit stop," during which he himslef says there were no searches carried out?

Or did you jump the gun a bit?

LeeG
10-26-2004, 12:40 PM
No kidding ScottM..there's no enriched nuclear material. Amazing to think about it,,the first priority was to ensure there "wasn't a nuclear proliferation risk". Maybe not using Chalabis paid experts or Perle/Kay bringing totally discredited people like Khidir Hamza to the 2002 Senate Hearings would have been a good screening process.
That was mighty insensitive of the IAEA,,you'd think their integrity or expertise had been maligned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3955007.stm

The US is playing down the significance of a UN letter saying almost 350 metric tons of high explosives went missing from an Iraqi base after the war.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said there was no risk of nuclear proliferation because of the theft.

.........

Administration officials, quoted anonymously by US media, criticised the UN watchdog - the International Atomic Energy Agency - for leaking the news at such a sensitive time, a week before the US election.

The Vienna-based IAEA said it had been informed on 10 October by the Iraq interim government that the explosives were missing.

.....

Mr McClellan pointed journalists to the 243,000 munitions destroyed in Iraq since the invasion, and another 163,000 earmarked for destruction.

"The first priority, from our standpoint, was to make sure that this wasn't a nuclear proliferation risk, which it is not," he said.

"These are conventional high explosives... and the president wants to make sure that we get to the bottom of this."

[ 10-26-2004, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

George.
10-26-2004, 12:51 PM
"... NBC's own news website, quoted Pentagon officials who said a search of the site after the US-led invasion had revealed the explosives to be intact."


Originally posted by StanStan:
... the silence is deafening.

Sure is :D

ljb5
10-26-2004, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by LeeG:
...we saw the bunkers that had been bombed, and that exposed all of the ordinances that just lied dormant on the desert....

...some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around.Okay, just for a second, let's set aside the question of the HMX and the RDX..... What about these "vast amount of ordnance" that was just lying around?

That doesn't sound good.

LeeG
10-26-2004, 01:12 PM
This is a good moment to pause and consider why soldiers are conservative. Why Shinseki could say 340,000 troops to secure the country,,and why 40-70,000 as desired by Rumsfield/Wolfowitz should have been a screaming red flag to the President of the United States. Someone responsible for their subordinates decisions,,which is different than hiring the wrong person because they perceive a different reality.
Faith does get a person sober,,but it's not meant to change reality,,it's to help deal with it.

Jim H
10-26-2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by ljb5:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RayRay:
Dot, and the rest of you leftists. Have you not seen the news this morning? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

People, a reporter with NBC news is stating the weapons cache was removed BEFORE OUR TROOPS HIT IRAQ. :eek: (he was with the troops and saw the warehouse).RayRay (mind if I call you Stan?)-

I haven't seen the article you are referring to.

I did find this article by NBC News (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/)


U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives were intact.</font>[/QUOTE]From the same article:


An NBC News crew that accompanied U.S. soldiers who seized the Al-Qaqaa base three weeks into the war in Iraq reported that troops discovered significant stockpiles of bombs, but no sign of the missing HMX and RDX explosives

George.
10-26-2004, 01:30 PM
Yes, we know that. Those troops found no sign of the explosives during their brief pit stop, during which no searches were conducted. So what? The troops found no sign of WMD in Iraq - will you and the rest of the neocons finally admit there were none?

George.
10-26-2004, 01:42 PM
SOLDIER (coming back from taking a piss behind some shells): Sir, there appear to be vast amounts of weapons strewn all over the desert here. But there is no sign of the missing HMX and RDX explosives."

OFFICER: What missing explosives, soldier?

SOLDIER: The ones that are going to be reported missing in a year and a half, sir.

OFFICER: Good job, soldier. Glad you noticed those missing explosives weren't here. Now go tell that to the embedded reporter, and then back to the Hummers on the double - we are off to Baghdad for the flower-throwing parade.

LeeG
10-26-2004, 01:47 PM
yes Jim,,,the 101st was tasked to head into Bagdad and they didn't find the missing 350tons of HE. You know why? Because it was the "missing 350tons". If it was described as "350 tons of HE" then they would have found it because is wasn't "missing". Language is cool isn't it?

Here's a blurb about Duelfers experience, it doesn't mention al qaqaa(sp?) but one might get the impression there anything not guarded by the US was fair game,,so US bases and the oil ministry were safe.:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-10-12-iraq-looting_x.htm

But Duelfer's 1,000-page report to President Bush shows how, in case after case, by the time U.S. inspectors arrived at a site, Iraqi looters had come and gone. Duelfer concluded that Iraq had no chemical or biological weapons stockpiles and had dismantled its nuclear weapons program in 1991. But Iraq retained some manufacturing equipment with possible nuclear weapons applications. U.N. inspectors in the late 1990s and again just before the March 2003 invasion identified and tagged these machines. Denied access to Iraqi weapons sites since the war, the IAEA used commercial satellite photography to identify looted sites.

Duelfer's report is far more detailed than the IAEA's because U.S. inspectors have had on-the-ground access to Iraqi weapons and manufacturing sites.

ljb5
10-26-2004, 02:11 PM
U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives were intact.From the same article:


An NBC News crew that accompanied U.S. soldiers who seized the Al-Qaqaa base three weeks into the war in Iraq reported that troops discovered significant stockpiles of bombs, but no sign of the missing HMX and RDX explosivesOkay. So the explosives were there immediately after the invasion - verified by U.S. troops.

Three weeks later, they were gone.

And what of the "significant stockpiles of bombs"?

[ 10-26-2004, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

Kev Smyth
10-26-2004, 02:45 PM
The explosives, which constitute less than 1% of the arms seized and destroyed by Americans since the invasion, were removed before our forces got there.

The NYT, UN, the DNC, and CBS news conspired to make Bush look bad, and help Kerry win the election. Unfortunately the facts got in the way.

Will Kerry apologize? Will this final attack on what little credibility he had left cost him the election? Stay tuned! ;)

ljb5
10-26-2004, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Kev Smyth:
The explosives, which constitute less than 1% of the arms seized and destroyed by Americans since the invasion, were removed before our forces got there.Um, no, they were not.

They were there -- intact -- when our forces arrived in the immediate aftermath of the invasion.

They may have been removed later, before other forces got there, on a different date, but they were definitely there when our troops got there.

But if you want to believe it's all a conspiracy, you'd better add the IAEA, the Interim government, NBC, ABC, the AP and the Pentagon to your list.

[ 10-26-2004, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

Kev Smyth
10-26-2004, 03:18 PM
No, you are wrong. And continuing the lie won't change that.

The "missing" explosives of concern are similar to corn starch in bulk and appearance. Three hundred and eighty tons would fill 15-20 semi-tractor trailers. You don't "overlook" or "miss" this quantity of material, even if you aren't looking for it. You also don't just steal or loot it by rolling up with a crew and some wheelbarrows. :rolleyes:

The parties involved in this shameful scam are busy trying to rephrase and reword the info erroneously reported in an effort to salvage some credibility. They want to spin the public into a state of confusion. It won't help.

Looks like the Kerry camp just underestimated the American pulic again.

[ 10-26-2004, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Kev Smyth ]

LeeG
10-26-2004, 03:27 PM
I keep misunderestimating you kevsmythrad.

ljb5
10-26-2004, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Kev Smyth:
No, you are wrong. And continuing the lie won't change that.
Well, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

The difference, of course, is that the facts are on my side. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/)

LeeG
10-26-2004, 03:43 PM
Ljb5, some might say that those from the reality based community would of course resort to using the facts,,but that doesn't make them right. Right is the more exalted position of those who have the power to make reality!

LeeG
10-26-2004, 03:50 PM
But on occasions a liason is necessary between the faith based and reality based paradigms. Scott McClellan quickly ascertained that no nuclear material was involved.

"White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that Bush had ordered an investigation of the disappearance shortly after being notified by the IAEA on Oct. 15 and that officials had quickly ascertained that no nuclear material was involved."

Russell Sova
10-26-2004, 04:37 PM
This is just another bunch of liberal stuff that has totally backfired. The 350 tons of weapons were under UN observation and in Jan. 2003 CNN did a story about the site. They said that there were blasting caps for larger explosives and for setting off nuclear bombs. They also stated there were large amounts of munitions there. The US entered the area on April 9, 2003 and on April 10, 2003 the site was found empty! Are we to suppose that 350 tons of weapons were moved in that one day? Now Kerry is saying that these weapons could end up in terrorists hands and he is going to produce an ad in battleground states about this this weekend. The problem is he already said there is no connection between Saddam and the war on terror. But since the weapons were gone when we got there, as reported by the generals in the US army, but they were there when the UN was there, then how did they get into terrorist hands if Saddam didn't give it to them?

ljb5
10-26-2004, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Russell Sova:
...But since the weapons were gone when we got there, as reported by the generals in the US army...Wrong again.

The explosives were there when we got there (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/)


At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces.That's from the Pentagon.

George.
10-26-2004, 05:01 PM
Spin, spin, spin.

"... NBC's own news website, quoted Pentagon officials who said a search of the site after the US-led invasion had revealed the explosives to be intact."

Which part of that do you not understand?

OFFICER: Are you sure there are no soon-to-be-reported-as-missing weapons in this dump, soldier?

SOLDIER: Well, sir, there are missing weapons, but I don't know if they'll be reported as missing. I don't even know if they were once here. There are missing weapons of mass destruction that were reported to be here, but ain't. And there are weapons that have not been reported as missing yet, but will be, but I don't know if any of those are here. I can go take another leak and look around if you want, sir.

OFFICER: Never mind. Just tell the embedded reporter there are no missing weapons here.

SOLDIER: Sir, he says what he needs is more footage of us riding on the Bradleys looking bad.

High C
10-26-2004, 06:17 PM
"NBC reported that its embedded crew said U.S. troops did discover significant stockpiles of bombs, but no sign of the missing HMX and RDX explosives." Associated Press

It now appears that this stockpile of weapons was moved out of Iraq during the 14 month runup to the war. Ten to fifteen semi-truck loads of this stuff weren't just carted off in terrorist's backpacks. It wasn't "looted" or stolen in the night while no one was looking. Ten to fifteen semi-truck loads. Where did it go?

This begs the question: what else was moved out of Iraq during this period? Those who claim that President Bush fabricated the WMDs as an excuse to invade are going to have a hard time answering this question. That silly story is starting to unravel, as this ill planned "October surprise" blows up in Kerry's face.

If a dozen or more semi-truck loads of HMX and RDX explosives were moved out of Iraq before the war, how can anyone logically claim that it's impossible that other types of weapons were similarly transported? That's a negative which has not been proven, not by a long shot, CIA reports or otherwise. It just doesn't add up.

We'd better find these weapons, and any others that are unaccounted for, and cease making wild, irresponsible claims that they never existed. This revelation is an important indicator of what could have become of Hussein's more dangerous weapons. We mustn't discard common sense just because there's a Presidential campaign afoot. There are things that are far more important.

[ 10-26-2004, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

Kev Smyth
10-26-2004, 06:20 PM
http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/nytrogate.html

ljb5
10-26-2004, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by High C:
"NBC reported that its embedded crew said U.S. troops did discover significant stockpiles of bombs, but no sign of the missing HMX and RDX explosives." Associated Press

It now appears that this stockpile of weapons was moved out of Iraq during the 14 month runup to the war.NBC News reported that they were verified to be at the site on March 14th, 2003.

The U.S. troops did not even look for the HMX or RDX in April.

Of course they didn't find anything - they weren't even looking.

In the words of Lia Ling Jew, the NBC reporter embedded with the 101st Airborne:


There wasn't a search...that was more of a pit stop there for us...as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons, nothing to keep looters away...They spent less than 24 hours at the site, which has more than 1000 buildings and they didn't even look.

RayRay
10-26-2004, 06:43 PM
Obviously my contention that the left is dangerous to the world is being confirmed in this very thread.

ABB....no matter what.

LeeG
10-26-2004, 07:33 PM
High,,you one flexible guy.

High C
10-26-2004, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by LeeG:
High,,you one flexible guy.How dare you sir, smack, smack! I'll have you know that my position relative to Iraq and its WMDs has been most consistent, that they were likely moved out of the country before the war. Now we have a 380 ton example of just that.

Flexible? Not I! :eek: ;) :D :rolleyes: :cool:

Edited to add: Oh yeah?! tongue.gif

[ 10-26-2004, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

LeeG
10-26-2004, 09:10 PM
You have a faith in Saddams abilities that wasn't reflected by his performance.

High C
10-26-2004, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by LeeG:
You have a faith in Saddams abilities that wasn't reflected by his performance.Ummm, I don't know what you mean by that. Perhaps that he was not capable of moving/hiding his weapons?

RayRay
10-26-2004, 09:45 PM
High C, don't let these nats on the left make you hit yourself while swatting. I'm waiting for the real October surprise, the Republican surprise.....wonder which one of sKerry's falsehoods will pop up?

His discharge?

HMMMMMMMMMMM? tongue.gif

I love the Swift Boat Vets. God bless 'em.

Bob Smalser
10-26-2004, 09:53 PM
Letsee...

...Kerry is slamming Bush for not having the weapons...if they were still there...under control by April 10th last...

...which is before US troops had full control of the area.

Pray tell, does that mean that Kerry prefers that Bush should have invaded Iraq earlier?

My first-blush take is that the NYT is pulling another Jayson Blair on us as an October Surprise.

Satellite recce, preinvasion surveillance and troops on the ground point to the likelyhood that these explosives were not there at all in early April.

But the NYT has "anonymous sources" at the Pentagon and Iraq that prove beyond a journalistic shadow of doubt that we had full control and had them stolen out from under our noses...

...riiighhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttt.

Kinda like Kerry's timely Honorable Discharge, right?

...riiighhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttt.

LeeG
10-26-2004, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LeeG:
You have a faith in Saddams abilities that wasn't reflected by his performance.Ummm, I don't know what you mean by that. Perhaps that he was not capable of moving/hiding his weapons?</font>[/QUOTE]what weapons?

LeeG
10-26-2004, 10:15 PM
Bob,,a mere 350tons of high explosives, some of which are necessary for making nukes(with enriched uranium of course),,let alone car bombs wouldn't be that newsworthy if there wasn't something called pre-emptive war based on immeninent threats presented by Saddam working in collusion with Al Qeda. A threat that could put a mushroom cloud on the Potomac. If not for the fact that a war for winning hearts and minds that's not turning out at all as presented by those military geniuses, Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfield/Wurmser/Perle,,and GW this news wouldn't be so newsworthy.
The neat news bite "350tons of High Explosives" is as catchy as "politician caught in sex scandal",,,everything is getting used for the election. In the case of those 350tons it's being used on US soldiers,,while lip synching rock stars or sex scandals aren't.

High C
10-26-2004, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by LeeG:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LeeG:
You have a faith in Saddams abilities that wasn't reflected by his performance.Ummm, I don't know what you mean by that. Perhaps that he was not capable of moving/hiding his weapons?</font>[/QUOTE]what weapons?</font>[/QUOTE]Smack, smack...

Kev Smyth
10-26-2004, 10:39 PM
This is pretty hard to follow- I mean first there are no weapons, then there are, then we should have control, but we aren't there soon enough, but we went to the wrong war at the wrong time (too early, or too late?).... blah, blah, blah. :rolleyes: tongue.gif

I give up- I'm voting for Bush. At least I know when he sees a terrorist he's gonna kick their a@@! :D No committe meetings, no world approval, no checking with the wife... :cool:

LeeG
10-26-2004, 10:50 PM
he doesn't deserve to be rewarded for being a neo-con tool. Your faith and loyalty is charming.
GW created more terrorists in Iraq. The circumstances there will dictate what GW can do not vice versa. You are forgetting what happened when the Whitehouse micromanaged Falluja with optomistic stories of the Iraqi force.
be brave, , it's only reality talking.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn /A16309-2004Sep12?language=printer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16309-2004Sep12?language=printer)

Conway arrived in Iraq in March pledging to accelerate reconstruction projects as a way to subdue Anbar province, dominated by Sunni Muslims. But on March 31 he was confronted in Fallujah with the killing of four U.S. security contractors, whose bodies were mutilated or burned by a celebrating mob. Conway said he resisted calls for revenge, and instead advocated targeted operations and continued engagement with municipal leaders.

"We felt like we had a method that we wanted to apply to Fallujah: that we ought to probably let the situation settle before we appeared to be attacking out of revenge," he said in an interview with four journalists after the change-of-command ceremony. "Would our system have been better? Would we have been able to bring over the people of Fallujah with our methods? You'll never know that for sure, but at the time we certainly thought so."

He echoed an argument made by many Iraqi politicians and American analysts -- that the U.S. attack further radicalized a restive city, leading many residents to support the insurgents. "When we were told to attack Fallujah, I think we certainly increased the level of animosity that existed," Conway said.

He would not say where the order to attack originated, only that he received an order from his superior at the time, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the overall commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. Some senior U.S. officials in Iraq have said the command originated in the White House.

"We follow our orders," Conway said. "We had our say, and we understood the rationale, and we saluted smartly, and we went about the attack."

The Marine assault on Fallujah in April ended abruptly after three days. Conway expressed displeasure at the order he received from Sanchez to cease offensive operations, a decision that culminated in the formation of the Fallujah Brigade.

"When you order elements of a Marine division to attack a city, you really need to understand what the consequences of that are going to be and not perhaps vacillate in the middle of something like that," he said. "Once you commit, you got to stay committed."

[ 10-26-2004, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

Kev Smyth
10-26-2004, 10:54 PM
Hey LeeG, parse this- it makes it all clear: i.e., Kerry and his media thugs are history!

Feb. 2003 UN Report: Saddam Moving Explosives From Al-Qaqaa

The United Nations nuclear watchdog group first reported that Saddam Hussein had begun moving stockpiles of explosives from his Al-Qaqaa nuclear weapons facility a month before the U.S. invaded Iraq.

The February 2003 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, first reported Tuesday by the Fox News Channel, severely undermines claims by the New York Times, CBS News and the Kerry campaign that the Al-Qaqaa explosives went missing only after the U.S. gained control of the facility.

Fox correspondent Bret Baier detailed the chronology of events at Al-Qaqaa for "Special Report with Brit Hume":
* "In January 2003, inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency went to the Al-Qaqaa storage facility, tagging and sealing the large stockpile of powerful conventional explosives, HMX and RDX.

* "In February 2003, IEAE chief Mohamed ElBaradei reported to the United Nations Security Council that some explosives had been removed from Al Qua Quaa - 377 tons remained.

* "On March 8, 2003, IEAE inspectors made their last check of the facility before the war. The IAEA said that included a spot check on some - but not all - of the sealed explosives.

* "The war started March 19. After the Army's third division moved through here on their way to Baghdad, the first US troops stopped in to Al-Qaqaa on April 9.

* "A Reuters camera crew embedded with the Scouts from the 101st Airborne Division arrived at the storage facility, did a quick search noting a number of bunkers filled with explosives - but nothing marked by the IAEA.

* "On April 10, the Second Brigade of the 101st arrived there and spent the night.. An NBC crew was with them. A cursory search was conducted. Again, nothing marked or tagged by the IAEA was spotted. The Second Brigade left the next day, pushing forward to Baghdad.

* "US weapons inspectors, the Iraq Survey Group, arrived at the site on May 27, conducting a full search of the 32 bunkers - and they did not find any of the IAEA-marked explosives."

"If one large truck contains ten tons, US commanders say it's highly unlikely that insurgents managed to take 38 truckloads worth of explosives out of the facility in that time.

"The roads were filled with convoys pushing to Baghdad, clogged with supplies and communications lines stretching all the way back to Kuwait - all being watched closely by unmanned aerial vehicles like the Jointstars and the Predators to protect the troops rear flank and to spot unusual activity.

"Defense Secretary Rumsfeld - asked about the missing explosives in a radio interview today - said the specifics are under investigation by the Iraq Survey Group. But he chose to point out that Saddam Hussein moved many weapons and explosives before the war."

LeeG
10-26-2004, 11:05 PM
kevradsmythcon,,so you're saying between Feb8 and April 10 Saddam moved 377 tons and it wasn't noticed by US surveillance means? All of the US resources are looking on Iraq in preparation for war and we missed it?
Guess it's possible. Chalabi thinks that WMD was just an excuse, do you think that's possible?

So why did David Kay quit his job last fall?

LeeG
10-26-2004, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by Kev Smyth:
This is pretty hard to follow- I mean first there are no weapons, then there are, then we should have control, but we aren't there soon enough, but we went to the wrong war at the wrong time (too early, or too late?).... blah, blah, blah. :rolleyes: tongue.gif

I give up- I'm voting for Bush. At least I know when he sees a terrorist he's gonna kick their a@@! :D No committe meetings, no world approval, no checking with the wife... :cool: there, there, I'll get you a sedative..
oh,,here's why Kay quit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3424831.stm

High C
10-26-2004, 11:17 PM
I don't want to hear any more about how we failed to guard the El Caca stockplies of RDX and HMX explosives.

We knew they used to be there. The UN said so. So we went in and looked around, but couldn't find them. No problem.... eh voila! They never existed!!!

Problem solved.... tongue.gif

(Now wasn't that ridiculous?)

LeeG
10-26-2004, 11:29 PM
it's stupid too.
Iraq notified the IAEA those 377tons were missing.
Sounds a little like the CIA sending Joe Wilson to prove a document than anyone close to these matters could tell was phony.

Why would iraq do that High? Maybe Iraq is worried about it's security. Maybe Iraq is worried GW isn't playing with a full deck?
Maybe Iraq is asking for help?
Maybe you can bring up the picture of the guy with his head in the sand?

High C
10-26-2004, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by LeeG:

Maybe you can bring up the picture of the guy with his head in the sand?Ahh, that was a classic. Unfortunately I can't find the original. This'll have to suffice. At least we finally know what he was looking for. ;)

http://www-keeler.ch.cam.ac.uk/pictures/pictures2002/RichwithSand.jpg