380 Tons Of Powerful Conventional Explosives Vanish in Iraq

[Nbadan]

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, produce missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no-man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Saturday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished after the American invasion last year.

The White House said President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was informed within the past month that the explosives were missing. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed. American officials have never publicly announced the disappearance, but beginning last week they answered questions about it posed by The New York Times and the CBS News program "60 Minutes."

American weapons experts say their immediate concern is that the explosives could be used in major bombing attacks against American or Iraqi forces: the explosives, mainly HMX and RDX, could be used to produce bombs strong enough to shatter airplanes or tear apart buildings. The bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound of the material of the type stolen from Al Qaqaa, and somewhat larger amounts were apparently used in the bombing of a housing complex in November 2003 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the blasts in a Moscow apartment complex in September 1999 that killed nearly 300 people......

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html?hp&ex=1098676800&en=61cf6e1aa29b7871&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/10/25/international/bomb650.jpg

Drudge on the radio tonight is telling listeners that this story was leaked by the Bush white house to remind people that there are dangers in Iraq and thus we need to keep the President in office. He sees it as something that has been leaked to the newspaper to help the Bush campaign!

From Josh Marshall...


The Times story treads lightly over the question of whether the explosives in question have played a substantial role in the various suicide bombings, car bombings and sundry other attacks in Iraq over the last year.

They also say little about Pentagon pressure on the Iraqis not to report the disappearance of the explosives to the IAEA.

In its place seems to be an administration version of events in which no one was put in charge of ascertaining what happened to the al Qa Qaa materials, then Iraqis mentioned it to Bremer in May but he seems not to have passed on word to anyone else, then Condi was told "within the past month" but it's not clear whether she told the president.
<more>

Talking Points memo (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/)

[spurster]

Another example of how we are safer under Bush.

[Nbadan]

This is incompetence of the worst kind, and it's our soldiers in the field who are gonna pay the price. Dr. Rice and Douglas Feith should be fired immediately.

[Nbadan]

The John Kerry Campaign has issued a statement regarding the missing explosives...


PORTSMOUTH, New Hampshire (AFP) - Democrat challenger John Kerry (news - web sites)'s campaign demanded answers from President George W. Bush (news - web sites) about the disappearance of nearly 400 tonnes of conventional explosives in Iraq (news - web sites), as the deadlocked White House race entered its final week.


AFP Photo



In a campaign underpinned by the basic question of who will make Americans safer, the Kerry camp pounced on revelations of the missing explosives, on a day when it also expects a boost from the return of former president Bill Clinton (news - web sites) to the campaign trail.


"Today, the Bush administration must answer for what may be the most grave and catastrophic mistake in a tragic series of blunders in Iraq," senior Kerry advisor Joe Lockhart said in a statement dispatched before sunrise.


"How did they fail to secure nearly 380 tons of known, deadly explosives despite clear warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency to do so? Why was this information unearthed by reporters -- and was it covered up by our national security officials?"

~snip~

Yahoo News (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041025/ts_alt_afp/us_vote&cid=1506&ncid=2043)

[Nbadan]

Guess you could say that John Kerry was right when he said in the second debate.. (http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html)


The president did not do what was necessary. Didn't bring in enough nation. Didn't deliver the help. Didn't close off the borders. Didn't even guard the ammo dumps. And now our kids are being killed with ammos right out of that dump.

[Useruser666]

Isn't this a military failure? Why is it Bush's fault?

[Nbadan]

Isn't this a military failure? Why is it Bush's fault?

He put his faith in C. Rice and Douglas Feith to handle the security situation in Iraq despite their lack of experience in doing so. The Buck has to stop somewhere in this war.

[Useruser666]

He put his faith in C. Rice and Douglas Feith to handle the security situation in Iraq despite their lack of experience in doing so. The Buck has to stop somewhere in this war.

So every single wrong doing by everyone in this country is Bush's fault? I could see if it was a direct order that led to this failure or even an order or directive from a cabinet level position, but this is a military blunder. If the military is guarding something and it gets stolen then it's their fault.

[Nbadan]

If the military is guarding something and it gets stolen then it's their fault.

What should be discerning is that the military was 'allowed' to secure the Iraqi Oil Ministry during the invasion, but important stuff like Iraq nuclear material and these weapon depots were left completely unguarded. The military does what politicians decide and securing these potential weapons obviously wasn't a high priority for the politicians.

[Useruser666]

Was Bush personally guarding this stuff? Was he sitting there at the gate of the compound with his shotgun? Then who was there? Was it the military? There are like 20 people that have the power to make the call on what should be guarded and how before the line of authority even leaves Iraq. Blaming Bush or even remotely implying that it's his fault is ridiculous. Gee, Kerry is a Congressman, why didn't he introduce a bill saying this stuff should be guarded. Find out who is directly at fault and then post that. Or let's see if there's an investigation at least.

[ChumpDumper]

I think whoever had the bright idea to invade Iraq to "secure" weapons and WMD technology is responsible.

[Useruser666]

So if a cop arrests a murderer and sends him to jail, and the murderer escapes and kills someone near the jail, it's the cop's fault? It's the mayor's fault? Or maybe it's the warden's fault, or even the jailer's?

[Nbadan]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/041022/beattie.gif

[ChumpDumper]

So if a cop arrests a murderer and sends him to jail, and the murderer escapes and kills someone near the jail, it's the cop's fault? It's he mayor's fault? Or maybe it's the warden's fault, or even the jailer's?Pretty much everyone but the original cop would be sued, if that helps you.

Harry Truman said "The buck stops here."

What will W say?

[Useruser666]

I don't see how that cartoon bolsters your argument.

[Useruser666]

Everyone but the original cop would be sued, if that helps you.

So it's only partly Bush's fault then?

[ChumpDumper]

Whose idea was this again?

[Useruser666]

Idea for what? Invading Iraq or not guarding the explosives?

[ChumpDumper]

Both, apparently. This is indeed why we went there, is it not?

[Useruser666]

So Bush said, "Don't guard those explosives!" Is that what you're saying? You are telling me Bush gave a direct order not to guard that stuff? How is it DIRECTLY his fault that this incident occured?

[ChumpDumper]

So Bush said, "Don't guard those explosives!" Is that what you're saying? You are telling me Bush gave a direct order not to guard that stuff? How is DIRECTLY his fault for this incident?It's called resposibility. It's completely obvious that guarding 380 tons of explosives was not a priority. Who is ultimately responsible for the execution of this war and occupation? What is this war and occupation for if not for securing weapons?

[spurster]

Chump, you don't get it. Bush is not responsible for anything bad that happens because it's someone else's fault.

[CommanderMcBragg]

http://www.bartcop.com/bushbast.gif

[Nbadan]

W's in deep Qa Qaa

:lol

[Nbadan]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/displacedtexan/wolfgrinthanksgw.jpg

[Useruser666]

Chump, you don't get it. Bush is not responsible for anything bad that happens because it's someone else's fault.

Yes it is some one else's fault. Show me where Bush ordered that stuff to NOT be guarded! Show me the proof that Bush ignored the issue of guarding it. Show where he forgot about it. You can't, because it doesn't exsist! Yes, Bush pushed for the war in Iraq. Yes he supports it now. No one is argueing that. This issue should be investigated to who allowed the explosives to go unguarded. I believe step one would be inquiring within the military. You know, the guys actually over there guarding the stuff. If you are going to fault Bush for what you believe are his short commings, at least fault him for things that are of his DIRECT doing.

[CommanderMcBragg]

Is Bush the Commander-In-Chief or not?
Does the buck only stop at Bush if it's a good thing?

[Useruser666]

Is Bush the Commander-In-Chief or not?
Does the buck only stop at Bush if it's a good thing?

I said investigate it. See what turns up. What if a theatre commander said the explosives were guarded and then turned around and did not have them guarded. What if they were gone long before the US could secure them? When you get a zit tomorrow morning are you going to blame Bush? I mean he is commander and chief and he could have washed your face for you!

[Yonivore]

This is neither new nor can it be pinned on the Bush administration.

The explosives were being watched by the IAEA prior to invasion and it was gone after the invasion.

Hussein could have moved it between the last IAEA observation and invasion or during the invasion. The invading coalition troops went to the site and it was gone.

That was reported when it happened. This is only being recirculated because it can be spun...

You people are so gullible.

[Hook Dem]

This is neither new nor can it be pinned on the Bush administration.

The explosives were being watched by the IAEA prior to invasion and it was gone after the invasion.

Hussein could have moved it between the last IAEA observation and invasion or during the invasion. The invading coalition troops went to the site and it was gone.

That was reported when it happened. This is only being recirculated because it can be spun...

You people are so gullible.
It's all they got left Yoni.

[ChumpDumper]

Thanks, Yoni.

I feel so much safer now.

[IcemanCometh]

http://smuj.home.comcast.net/fark/20031102-quagmire.jpg

[IcemanCometh]

http://home.earthlink.net/~mstrachtenberg/images/strongerest.jpg

[IcemanCometh]

http://neptune.uploadhub.com/uploads/4705q.jpg

[IcemanCometh]

Forget the explosives.
There never were explosives.
We guarded everything.
Look at the cute little kitty.
http://www.bowdownbefore.us/images/baby1.jpg
This distraction brought to you by the Republican National Committee.

[Useruser666]

From the opinions expressed in this thread, I get the feeling some of you think the Republican Guard that was defeated in Iraq was led by Bob Dole.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Dan,

I thought they didn't have any WMD in Iraq... You realize Kerry just hung himself with that one, right?

[ChumpDumper]

High explosives <> WMD

Sure could cap off a nuke though.

[CommanderMcBragg]

There is no need to spin.
This one is as clear as day.
Someone dropped the ball bigtime.

[Marcus Bryant]

Oh, if only Saddam was in power. *sigh*

[boutons]

Yes, if only Saddam, he of evil "intentions", were still in "power", successfuly hemmed in by north/south no-fly zones, his industrial/military power emasculated by 13 years sanctions and inspectors, posing no threat to even first-enemy Iran, and certainly no "immediate" threat to USA.

If only 1000+ US lives weren't wasted in this completey bogus, completely fumbled, "abosolutely necessary" war, along with the wasted lives of 1000's of Iraqi women and children.

If only $B120+ were not wasted into the sands of Iraq, but put into USA domestic security and finishing the job in Afghanistan.

[boutons]

Hussein could have moved it between the last IAEA observation and invasion or during the invasion.

You people are so gullible.

Sorry, Yoni-spinner, that won't spin-dry:

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

[Marcus Bryant]

Check out the Duelfer report, bonbon. Leaving him in power wasn't an option, stockpiles or none.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Chump... 380 tons <> WMD?

One pound of that stuff took down the Lockerbee Pan Am flight way back.

Just to go "evil" here for a sec, put 20 tons in rental trucks and drive them into the 19 tallest buildings in America, or Europe, or wherever. Still wanna argue that one?

[ChumpDumper]

So then, every country has WMD.

When so we attack?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Ask Kerry. He's gotta pass out and then grade his global test first, right?

[ChumpDumper]

Nope, he won't be President.

Attack them too?

[boutons]

The Duelfer reported proved that shrub was totally, deceitfully, willfully wrong that the war on Iraq being immediately and necessarily the ONLY option to dealing with Iraq.

Inspectors worked. (they KNEW about the 400 tons BECAUSE IT WAS THERE, and also about the 35 tons that went missing while the inspectors were absent) and NOBODY has found anything else "WMD" before or after the war, BECAUSE IT WASN'T THERE.

Sanctions worked. As seen by the dilapidated state of the Iraqi army, the industrial base, and military quipment compared to its state during the Kuweit invasion.

To remove the threat of the KNOWN 380 tons of WMD material without war, the US had bomb ONLY that site to oblivion, Israel did with the Iraqi nuclear reactor.

[Marcus Bryant]

The sanctions scheme was not sustainable, per the Duelfer report. Hussein was buying influence among UN Security Council member nations in order to get the sanctions removed. Hussein was planning to resume his WMD production once the UN got off his case. Some WMDs don't exactly take that long to produce.

So instead of taking him out when we could we would have you advocate leaving him in power, free of the sanctions and free to build up his WMD programs again.

Great.

[boutons]

"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, under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter, the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity." NYT today.

[ChumpDumper]

And we'd still be free to fly over and bomb the hell out those sites like before.

Great.

[Opinionater]

IMHO, Bush needs to directly address this issue and take responsibility.

[spurster]

As the search for a rationalization for war continues ...

The US and the UN knew about these explosives. Compared to the alleged WMD threat, they didn't even rate a footnote in Powell's UN speech. They were a low enough priority to not be properly guarded after the invasion, as much due to that the fact they were "conventional" rather than WMD as due to Rummy's misguided attempt to use as little manpower as possible. Yet when there are stockpiles of conventional weapons and whatnot, do you simply let any group of Iraqi have at them? Is this supposed to make me feel safer? Or make the troops safer?

Bush keeps telling us he'll keep us safe, but snafus like this isn't much of a confidence-builder in his promise.

[Useruser666]

So Bush said, "Don't guard those explosives!" ???? Show me that!

[boutons]

Iraq arms report omitted key fact

The Associated Press

Arms hunter Charles Duelfer's report left out the crucial fact that the U.N. Security Council had planned controls over Iraqi weapons for years to come, U.N. officials say.

The council, led by the United States, had decreed that inspections and disarmament of Iraq were to be followed by tough, open-ended monitoring.

“It's been a little disturbing,” said Demetrius Perricos, chief U.N. weapons inspector. “All the arguments say that when sanctions ended, Saddam Hussein would have had a free hand. By the council's own resolutions that wasn't so.”

In his Oct. 6 report, CIA adviser Duelfer discredited President Bush's stated rationale for invading Iraq, saying his Iraq Survey Group found no weapons of mass destruction there. But he suggested Iraq might still have posed a threat.

Hussein “wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability — which was essentially destroyed in 1991 — after sanctions were removed,” the report said, though it added that no such formal plan was uncovered.

This Duelfer finding became a new focus for the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney told one audience Oct. 7: “As soon as the sanctions were lifted, (Hussein) had every intention of going back” to building weapons.

An academic expert on the Iraq inspections regime was among those disputing this, noting that lifting the U.N. embargo would not have opened that door. “This is not the case under Resolution 687 and later ones,” said Yale University's James S. Sutterlin.

Years of Security Council resolutions preceding the 2003 U.S.-British invasion mandated that U.N. arms monitors would remain in Iraq once Baghdad's weapons of mass destruction programs were shut down — as Duelfer acknowledged they were in the 1990s. With unusual powers and the best technology, the monitors in this second stage would “prevent Iraq from developing new capabilities,” said a blueprint for the Ongoing Monitoring and Verification program.

Resolutions also stipulated that U.N. trade sanctions would not be lifted until the ongoing monitoring program was in place — and lifted then only for civilian goods.

The Security Council, where Washington has a veto, would decide how long to keep monitoring in place. Perricos said it was expected to last years. “You couldn't have disarmament and stop monitoring afterward,” he said.

In 19 pages of “Key Findings,” however, while raising the prospect of future threats, the Duelfer report ignores this plan to prevent them.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Here's another thought...

Perhaps we did know about the explosives, knew people were taking them, and have been watching from above to find out where they're going?

Maybe even snuck some homing beacons into some of the containers...

[Useruser666]

Here's another thought...

Perhaps we did know about the explosives, knew people were taking them, and have been watching from above to find out where they're going?

Maybe even snuck some homing beacons into some of the containers...

How about a lit fuse?

[Opinionater]

IMHO, I think it's funny how some say "Bush is doing a great job because there hasn't been a terrorist strike since 9/11!", but when it comes to mistakes or issues they don't even want to mention Bush being responsible.

[Useruser666]

IMHO, I think it's funny how some say "Bush is doing a great job because there hasn't been a terrorist strike since 9/11!", but when it comes to mistakes or issues they don't even want to mention Bush being responsible.

Who are the people you are refering to?

[Marcus Bryant]

Putting this in some perspective...



http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200410251421.asp

HEY, WHAT ABOUT THE 248,000 TONS OF EXPLOSIVES DESTROYED OR CAPTURED?

Back in June - nearly four months ago - the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/177738_weapons14.asp):


Although the world's attention has focused on the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, scant attention has been paid to the mountains of weapons of conventional destruction unearthed in Iraq.

The bombs, rockets, grenades, cannon shells and bullets amount to the world's fourth-largest stockpile of weapons, Army Corps of Engineers officials say. An estimated 600,000 tons of munitions with markings from all over the world, including the United States, and some so old that the weapons that fired them are no longer made, were stashed in Saddam's innumerable caches.

To date, 110,000 tons have been destroyed. An additional 138,000 tons are stored behind protective barriers.

That adds up to 248,000 tons of explosives destroyed or captured! And those numbers are almost certainly much higher today.

Is it a bad thing if these 350 tons of explosives are out there? Sure. But there is nothing in the Times story to confirm that the explosives were secure when the war began. This IAEA report, conducted in January 2003, appears to be the last time any outsider could confirm the stuff was there. (The Times story quotes letters and memos from IAEA officials speculating that the explosives were taken during the looting, but this is just guessing, really.)

There is also this section (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5094&en=fd35fdf4b6d46d61&hp&ex=1098763200&partner=homepage):


By late 2003, diplomats said, arms agency experts had obtained commercial satellite photos of Al Qaqaa showing that two of roughly 10 bunkers that contained HMX appeared to have been leveled by titanic blasts, apparently during the war. They presumed some of the HMX had exploded, but that is unclear.

Other HMX bunkers were untouched. Some were damaged but not devastated. I.A.E.A. experts say they assume that just before the invasion the Iraqis followed their standard practice of moving crucial explosives out of buildings, so they would not be tempting targets. If so, the experts say, the Iraqi must have broken seals from the arms agency on bunker doors and moved most of the HMX to nearby fields, where it would have been lightly camouflaged - and ripe for looting.

Also note this section: "As a measure of the size of the stockpile, one large truck can carry about 10 tons, meaning that the missing explosives could fill a fleet of almost 40 trucks."

Forty trucks filled with explosives pulled away from an Iraqi arms depot during the invasion or occupation? Yeah, right. U.S. air power and/or ground forces would have pulverized them. I'd bet a Krispy Kreme doughnut that at least a big chunk of these explosive materials were taken before the war.

UPDATE: If I'm hearing her correctly, CNN's Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr says Defense Department officials think these materials were taken from the site before the invasion began.


Please resume your rationalization of how it would have been preferable for Hussein to have remained in power, free to do as he pleased and in control of that arsenal. A rationalization of Kerry and Edwards' view at the time that a Hussein in possession of WMDs constituted a grave threat to the United States and had to be removed, by force if necessary, should also be considered. Thank you.

[boutons]

Conventional weapons/explosives need an army/airforce for delivery.

Just how was Saddam's army/airforce in any shape after :

a butchereous defeat in 1991,
12 years of sanctions,
enslaved in his own airspace,
inspectors crawling everywhere,
satellites scanning his terrain down to the meter (or better),
24x7 US air patrols,
massive US presence in Kuwait and Gulf waters.

to deliver anything against anybody even in his neighborhood, let alone deliver an "immediate" threat to USA?

Iraq was not threat to anybody but its own people, which was NOT a "justification" falsified by shrub before the war.

shrub wanted this war, before taking office, NO MATTER WHAT, when the real threat was/has been/still is Islamic militants everywhere BUT in Iraq.

shrub abused/exploited 9/11 ruthlessly, recklessly for justifying for his own, personal bogus war on Iraq. He's failed commander-in-chief for wasting 1200+ US lives and 1000's of US injuries. Reckless negligence, willful ignorance, murderous incompetence, ideological fantasies, shrub and posse are guilty of manslaughter of US citizens and Iraqis in this bogus war.

[Marcus Bryant]

Again, that was not sustainable going forward. Hussein was buying his way out of the sanctions. Also, the delivery method which concerned the United States most was an unnconventional drop off in a major US urban center.

Hatred of Bush is not a valid explanation.

[spurster]

So finding 248,000 tons out of 600,000 tons is supposed to make me feel better? 350,000 missing tons of weapons?

Maybe the 350 tons are important because they are special explosives (guaranteed by the IAEA seal, I guess, almost as good as Good Housekeeping). Maybe it is also just the top of the iceberg.

[boutons]

"248,000 tons out of 600,000 tons"

not 248.

380 US tons of HMX/RDX explosive material (not finished weapons like the other 300 odd tons (guns and their ammunition, RPGs, mines, artillery shells, etc, etc). ie, this stuff is truly capable of mass destruction, taking out an ocean liner, a container port, a WTC, etc. Try that level of "massive" destruction with the stockpiles of finished weapons.

"The explosives missing from Al Qaqaa are the strongest and fastest in common use by militaries around the globe. The Iraqi letter identified the vanished stockpile as containing 194.7 metric tons of HMX, which stands for "high melting point explosive," 141.2 metric tons of RDX, which stands for "rapid detonation explosive," among other designations, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, which stands for "pentaerythritol tetranitrate."

In short, the one and only fucking KNOWN-before-the-war, inventoried, found, inspector-monitored stockpile of WMD-ful material is now proliferated into enemy hands. reckless incompetence. This fiasco really shows how fake, trumped up shrub's WMD justification was. Shrub didn't find the WMD he claimed were there, and then he lost the WMD materiel even the inspectors knews was there. Absolutely insane.

Detestation of shrub is based on his misconduct in office (which misconduct he lies about and has caused loss of life) which shows how inconsequential is the misconduct of blow job or two (which cost no lives). The Repugs spent more energy, were more relentes in pursuing Whitewater and blowjobs than they were in deciding to start a fucking bogus war.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

You know, for all of your hate and outrage over this, I haven't seen conclusive proof that Saddam and his cronies didn't scatter this stuff BEFORE we crossed the Iraqi border.

Perhaps we should wait to see the final results before you go off like a whiny, nagging little bitch.

[boutons]

"I haven't seen conclusive proof that Saddam..."

The Pentagon and the WH both admit the explosives were there AFTER the US invasion.

[Yonivore]

"I haven't seen conclusive proof that Saddam..."

The Pentagon and the WH both admit the explosives were there AFTER the US invasion.
Post your source on that "admission," and verbatim please.

[boutons]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html?ex=1099725995&ei=1&en=08c96cfb25d97926


Tracking the Weapons: Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq

October 25, 2004
By JAMES GLANZ, WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER

....

"The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be
under American military control but is now a no man's land,
still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United
Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for
many years, but White House and Pentagon officials
acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the
American-led invasion last year."

...

[Yonivore]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html?ex=1099725995&ei=1&en=08c96cfb25d97926


Tracking the Weapons: Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq

October 25, 2004
By JAMES GLANZ, WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER

....

"The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be
under American military control but is now a no man's land,
still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United
Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for
many years, but White House and Pentagon officials
acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the
American-led invasion last year."

...
No, the quote from the "White House and Pentagon officials" that led to that report.

Because, it doesn't say coalition forces had actually taken control of the facility yet. And, it doesn't say how long "after" the invasion the stuff went missing...

I note that nowhere do you see that coalition forces controlled the facility when the explosives were stolen or went missing.

[Marcus Bryant]

Maybe they can blame this on Jayson Blair. Something to think about the next time you read anything from the NY Times.



http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp

NBC BLOWS A HOLE IN THE KERRY ATTACK ABOUT THE EXPLOSIVES [10/25 09:09 PM]

Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News pretty much dismantled the New York Times attack on behalf of Kerry today.

NBC News: Miklaszewski: “April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al Qakaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon. In a letter this month, the Iraqi interim government told the International Atomic Energy Agency the high explosives were lost to theft and looting due to lack of security. Critics claim there were simply not enough U.S. troops to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles, weapons now being used by insurgents and terrorists to wage a guerrilla war in Iraq.” (NBC’s “Nightly News,” 10/25/04)

If Jill Abramson, managing editor of the New York Times, had a shred of concern over her paper's reputation for getting the facts right never mind objectivity or fairness, she would be running the correction - or at least this blatantly contradictory information - in the giant headline font and above-the-fold location that today's story got. But I guess the interest in echoing the sentiments of Maureen Dowd is more important than getting it right at the Old Gray Lady.

[Kori Ellis]

I'm a republican and a Bush supporter and I can admit this was a major fuck up. I don't know why some of you are so clouded by your political beliefs that you can't see the reality.

No, I'm not saying that Bush personally told people, "Don't guard the explosives." But YES, it's the responsibility of the administration to limit these kind of mistakes. So they must take the blame.

Same thing with the trained Iraqis who were executed. That's on the adminstration. They should have been closely guarded/protected and they weren't.

These are catastrophic mistakes that shouldn't have happened. Sack up, take responsibility, and do more to safeguard things like this from happening in the future.

[Marcus Bryant]

If it happened as the Kerry camp...er, The New York Times reported it did then sure, take responsibility. But apparently that was not the case.

[Marcus Bryant]

More...



http://www.drudgereport.com/nbcw.htm

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON OCT 25 2004 22:45:05 ET XXXXX

NBCNEWS: HUGE CACHE OF EXPLOSIVES VANISHED FROM SITE IN IRAQ -- AT LEAST 18 MONTHS AGO -- BEFORE TROOPS ARRIVED

The NYTIMES urgently reported on Monday how the Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives are now missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

Jumping on the TIMES exclusive, Dem presidential candidate John Kerry blasted the Bush administration for its failure to "guard those stockpiles."

"This is one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the great blunders of this administration," Kerry said.

In an election week rush:

**ABCNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 4 Times
**CBSNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 7 Times
**MSNBC Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 37 Times
**CNN Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 50 Times

But tonight, NBCNEWS reported, once: The 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives were already missing back in April 10, 2003 -- when U.S. troops arrived at the installation south of Baghdad!

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 HMX and RDX explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.

It is not clear why the NYTIMES failed to report the cache had been missing for 18 months -- and was reportedly missing before troops even arrived.

"The U.S. Army was at the sight one day after the liberation and the weapons were already gone," a top Republican blasted from Washington late Monday.

The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003 when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers.

Developing...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
(c)DRUDGE REPORT 2004
Not for reproduction without permission of the author

Oops. Snafus like this don't give me much confidence in the criticisms of Bush I read daily in the NY Times.

[LandShark]

Here's more from the Drudge Report:


Dem vp hopeful John Edwards blasted Bush for not securing the explosives: "It is reckless and irresponsible to fail to protect and safeguard one of the largest weapons sites in the country. And by either ignoring these mistakes or being clueless about them, George Bush has failed. He has failed as our commander in chief; he has failed as president."

A top Bush official e-mailed DRUDGE late Monday: "Let me get this straight, are Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards now saying we did not go into Iraq soon enough? We should have invaded and liberated Iraq sooner?"
:lol :lol

Classic!

Link (http://www.drudgereport.com/nbcw.htm)

[LandShark]

Can you say http://www.smiliegenerator.de/s26/smilies-2971.png

[boutons]

"Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, also contended that The Times had chosen to run the article at the end of the campaign, though he argued that the explosives probably disappeared about 18 months ago."

Did Karl Rove know they disappeared 18 months ago and sat on it? Did the NYT know 18 months ago and sat on it until now?

But does he really think the evil NYT, or anybody else, would sit on such explosive info for 18 months had the NYT known, in Apr 04, about its disappearance?

And here's the spin doctor accusing Kerry of being "unfair":

"The Republicans and the White House mounted a similarly vociferous counterattack, charging Mr. Kerry with seizing on the loss of 380 tons of high explosives and never mentioning what Mr. McClellan called "more than 243,000 tons of munitions" that have been destroyed since the invasion. "Coalition forces have cleared and reviewed a total of 10,033 caches of munitions; another 163,000 tons of munitions have been secured and are on line to be destroyed.""

ok, ok, so yet-more faulty intelligence from shrub's intelligence apparatus did not inform the US forces about the huge, numerous caches of finished arms and munitions all over Iraq. unending waves of incompetence

So the Army has gone about with extreme industry and thoroughness (and no doubt considerable danger) to dispose of what they have discovered, but the Army totally ignored and lost 380 tons of WHAT WAS KNOWN TO EXIST and EXACTLY WHERE IT was, thanks to the UN/IAEA inspectors.

This really sounds like shrub's team totally ignored this contribution of the weapons inspectors on the WMD materiel contents+location, since that would have be in conflict with shrub's agenda of ridiculing and discrediting the weapons inspectors as ineffective.

[Marcus Bryant]

shrub, repug, all your base are belong to us

[Yonivore]

"Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, also contended that The Times had chosen to run the article at the end of the campaign, though he argued that the explosives probably disappeared about 18 months ago."

Did Karl Rove know they disappeared 18 months ago and sat on it? Did the NYT know 18 months ago and sat on it until now?
It was fucking reported 18 months ago you idiot!

[Nbadan]

Since when is Matt Drudge a reliable source? Didn't he once report that Kerry was having a extramatrital affair only to drop the accusation a couple days later? Anything that Drudge reports you can bet comes straight from Karl Rove.

The original article stated that Paul Bremer knew a long time ago that these weapons were missing and so did Condolezza Rice, but neither told the President. That is negligence of the highest degree.

[Marcus Bryant]

Since when is Matt Drudge a reliable source?

When he quoted NBC News you dumb fuck. Also Drudge was not the only one quoted. Given the crap you think is worthy of being taken seriously in here you should be the last poster questioning the legitimacy of anyone else's sources.


NBC News: Miklaszewski: “April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al Qakaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon. In a letter this month, the Iraqi interim government told the International Atomic Energy Agency the high explosives were lost to theft and looting due to lack of security. Critics claim there were simply not enough U.S. troops to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles, weapons now being used by insurgents and terrorists to wage a guerrilla war in Iraq.” (NBC’s “Nightly News,” 10/25/04)

[Nbadan]

Given the crap you think is worthy of being taken seriously in here you should be the last poster questioning the legitimacy of anyone else's sources

Talking about lack of credibility, How much VBookie money do you have left? Oh, that's right none. So your always wrong.

[Yonivore]

Since when is Matt Drudge a reliable source?
Only been forced to retract one story.

Didn't he once report that Kerry was having a extramatrital affair only to drop the accusation a couple days later?
Didn't CBS claim to have real documents?

Anything that Drudge reports you can bet comes straight from Karl Rove.
Like when he links to stories that are not favorable to the President?

The original article stated that Paul Bremer knew a long time ago that these weapons were missing and so did Condolezza Rice, but neither told the President. That is negligence of the highest degree.
Gee, I knew they were missing a long time ago as well.

This is just a regurgitated story from shortly after the invasion...

[Marcus Bryant]

Now that's a mortal wound, no doubt. Shouldn't you be tucking your children into bed and regaling them with stories about all the handouts you think John Kerry is going to give you?

[SpursWoman]

Talking about lack of credibility, How much VBookie money do you have left? Oh, that's right none. So your always wrong.



I'm putting all 550 on Kerry with ya.


So, how come you still have all yours, Dan? If you put your money where your mouth is, you'd be at $0.00, too. ;)

[Nbadan]

Only been forced to retract one story.

Who the fuck are you kidding. This is regular pattern for Drudge. I don't even go to his site anymore because I know its all right-wing spin.

[Marcus Bryant]

So is NBC a right-wing news source?

[Nbadan]

So, how come you still have all yours, Dan? If you put your money where your mouth is, you'd be at $0.00, too.

I am waiting to clear up personal bet details w/ Guido, but I will be 100% in soon.

[Marcus Bryant]

Don't lie. Did you pay Guido $500 to suck your cock?

[Nbadan]

So is NBC a right-wing news source?

Yes. They are owned by G.E.. The biggest arms supplier in the world.

[Nbadan]

Don't lie. Did you pay Guido $500 to suck your cock?

Hey, that's between Guido and myself, but suffice to say that he is a Catholic Priest.

[Marcus Bryant]

Of course, it's a conspiracy. I didn't realize Katie Couric was a right-wing hack. I suppose you learn something new every day.

[Yonivore]

Yes. They are owned by G.E.. The biggest arms supplier in the world.
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 HMX and RDX explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.

That's from the report.

I remember when they reported it. I was pretty big news then...

And, name one story, besides Drudge's retraction of his Sidney Blumenthal story of a couple years ago, that he's been forced to retract...

Fact is, most of his site is just links to other sources. But, when he scoops, he's usually right. I think the Kerry intern story was "unfounded" and not ever proven one way or the other...since, she decided to get "uncooperative" and pulled her website and all...

[Marcus Bryant]

I suppose Rove directed the Today Show to give air time to Kitty Kelley.

[Yonivore]

I suppose Rove directed the Today Show to give air time to Kitty Kelley.
Air time? Hell, they made her co-host for 3 freakin' days...

I'm also sure that's why the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth have been all over the morning and prime time news shows on NBC, as well.

[Hook Dem]

Talking about lack of credibility, How much VBookie money do you have left? Oh, that's right none. So your always wrong.
Not true Dan. There are those of us who have put their vBookie money where are mouths are. It doesn't mean we are wrong. The money is bet so it shows $0. Grow a pair and do the same. Whats all this shit about Guido? Ain't got anything to do with backing your mouth. Put up or STFU!

[Yonivore]

I am waiting to clear up personal bet details w/ Guido, but I will be 100% in soon.
Bullshit, you're just a chicken shit who talks big but is even afraid to put his virtual money where his virtual mouth is.

[Hook Dem]

Bullshit, you're just a chicken shit who talks big but is even afraid to put his virtual money where his virtual mouth is.
We're dealing with a "real" loser here Yoni.

[Yonivore]

We're dealing with a "real" loser here Yoni.
In more ways than three...

[Hook Dem]

NBC BLOWS A HOLE IN THE KERRY ATTACK ABOUT THE EXPLOSIVES
Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News pretty much dismantled the New York Times attack on behalf of Kerry today.

NBC News: Miklaszewski: “April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al Qakaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon. In a letter this month, the Iraqi interim government told the International Atomic Energy Agency the high explosives were lost to theft and looting due to lack of security. Critics claim there were simply not enough U.S. troops to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles, weapons now being used by insurgents and terrorists to wage a guerrilla war in Iraq.” (NBC’s “Nightly News,” 10/25/04)

So you see, folks, when the 101st Airborne and NBC News arrived at Al Qakaa, there wasn’t any HMX or RDX there....
Well now....don't that knock Kerry's dick in the dirt!

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Nbadick, I mean Dan...

If NBC is so biased, why were their anchors openly hostile to Bush's spokespeople during the debates?

If they were so biased to the right, why is it Chris Mathews had an exclusive with Hanoi John tonight, while Kerry has been dodging Fox News for a good month now?

Face it. The liberal NYT jumped all over this, along with John and John, and NBC showed video tonight that proves their wrong. The 350 tons may as well have blown up in their face, because they have video proof. None of that stupid ass anonymous source in west Texas, some random homeless bum who registered as Mary Poppins stuff, they aired the video and said "here's the empty bunkers, the NYT is wrong."

The NYTimes got served, John Kerry got served, John Edwards got served, and now you're getting served (as usual) here tonight. Have a nice day.

[boutons]

Because, it doesn't say coalition forces had actually taken control of the facility yet. And, it doesn't say how long "after" the invasion the stuff went missing...

I note that nowhere do you see that coalition forces controlled the facility when the explosives were stolen or went missing.

From the AP today, take from the MSNBC site:

"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, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity."

So NBC saying the 380 tons were missing in April is not in conflict with the Army see them there "intact" in March "immediate aftermath".

This story isn't over yet.

Of course, we can trust shrub to get to the bottom of this as "enthusiastically" as he wanted the 9/11 commision (about which he later flip-flopped and said he wanted the 9/11 commission).

[Nbadan]

April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war,

So the coalition did fail to protect this armoury for at least two weeks.

Unfortuantely for W, it's not as easy as when the administration noticed that the weapons were missing...


This has been rumored in Washington for several days. And now the Nelson Report has broken the story.

Some 350 tons of high explosives (RDX and HMX), which were under IAEA seal while Saddam was in power, were looted during the early days of the US occupation. Like so much else, it was just left unguarded.

Not only are these super-high-yield explosives probably being used in many, if not most, of the various suicide and car bombings in Iraq, but these particular explosives are ones used in the triggering process for nuclear weapons.

In other words, it's bad stuff.

What also emerges in the Nelson Report is that the Defense Department has been trying to keep this secret for some time. The DOD even went so far as to order the Iraqis not to inform the IAEA that the materials had gone missing. Informing the IAEA, of course, would lead to it becoming public knowledge in the United States.

I quote from Chris Nelson's summary ...


Despite pressure from DOD to keep it quiet, the IAEA and the Iraqi Interim Government this month officially reported that 350-tons of dual-use, very high explosives were looted from a previously secure site in the early days of the US occupation in 2003. Administration officials privately admit this material is likely a primary source of the lethal car bomb attacks which cause so many US and Iraqi casualties. In the first presidential candidate debate, on foreign policy, Democratic nominee John Kerry charged that captured munitions and weapons were being turned against Coalition Forces, with US troops suffering 90% of the casualties. But the specifics of the losses from the Al Qa Qaa bunker and building complex, only now being reported, were apparently unknown outside of DOD and the US occupation authorities. The Bush Administration barred the IAEA from any participation in the Iraq invasion and occupation process, and blocked IAEA requests to help in the search for WMD and other dangerous materials. As part of the UN sanctions regime still in place when the US invaded, the IAEA had “under seal” 350 tons of RDX and HDX explosives, since singly, and in combination, these materials can be used in the triggering process for a nuclear weapon. However, the explosives were allowed to remain in Iraq due to their conventional use in construction, oil pipe lines, and the like. Since the explosives went missing last year, sources say DOD and other elements in the Administration sought to block the IAEA from officially reporting the problem, and also tried to stop the new Iraqi Interim Government from cooperating with the IAEA. But finally, on Oct. 10, the Iraqi’s formally notified the IAEA, and on Oct. 15, the IAEA formally notified the Bush Administration. In press guidance prepared for release in the event news got out, but not released until today, when requested by The Nelson Report, State Department spokesmen confirmed the Iraqi government and IAEA report dates, and that 350 tons of dual use high explosives could not be accounted for. State says DOD has now authorized the Iraq Survey Group to investigate the situation, which, by all accounts, took place in April, 2003. The official press guidance claims “no indications of WMD” at the Al Qa Qaa site, but concedes that the IAEA-sealed explosives were already missing at that time. Some sources say that in addition to the explosives, 20,000 RDX-armed rockets were lost, but we cannot confirm this. However, sources do say that parts of Iraqi Scud engines, and other metal components, have turned up in scrap metal yards in Amsterdam.


1. The Summary gives you the sum total of what we have been told, starting Friday, by informed observers and directly involved officials. There was an expectation of a major newspaper story on it this morning, and perhaps also a segment on tonight’s 60 Minutes, on CBS Television. The newspaper report failed to materialize, the TV show may yet appear...stay tuned.

-- the information confirmed by the State Department Press Guidance, prepared, but not called for Friday, is important in that it provides, for the first time, explicit details on exactly what was lost to “looters” of the Al Qa Qaa bunker and building complex in the early days of the Iraq invasion and occupation, in April, 2003. The importance of the information? A highly informed official offered the assessment that, “this is the stuff the bad guys have been using to kill our troops, so you can’t ignore the political implications of this, and you would be correct to suspect that politics, or the fear of politics, played a major role in delaying the release of this information.”


Further down in this evening's edition of The Nelson Report comes this ...

3. The Iraqi authorities were caught in a similar bind, observers feel. Under heavy pressure from their sponsors in DOD and US occupation authorities not to cooperate with the IAEA, by confirming that all 350 tons of sealed explosives could not be accounted for, the Iraqi’s had to wait until the formal turnover of authority before notifying the IAEA, sources here suggest. So the Iraqis failed to act until Oct. 10, and the IAEA did not formally notified the US, by letter, until Oct. 15, according to the State Department’s official press guidance.

-- “What the hell WE were doing in the year and a half from the time we knew the stuff was gone, is obviously a huge question, and you can imagine why no one [in the Administration] wants to face up to it, certainly not before the election,” an Administration source says. Other sources also noted the language of the State Department guidance, which they interpret as seeking to deflect from the gravity of the situation in two ways: first, by listing hundreds of thousands of tons of other munitions and weapons already discovered and/or destroyed, “the Guidance has the effect, for unsophisticated listeners, of lowering the profile of ‘only’ 350 tons of RDX and HMX explosives from Al Qa Qaa”.

Note: experts were reluctant to say exactly how much of this stuff it takes for a successful road side bomb, for example, but the guesstimates were “a few pounds, at most.” In other words, “with 350 tons out there, the bombing can go on for years...”

4. Second, several highly informed sources were careful to hint, the “implications” of RDX and HMX, singly, and in combination, “are also an extremely serious issue, which is why they were under IAEA-seal”. One expert pointedly added, “and that’s all I can say on that, even on background.” Another sources noted, however, “it’s interesting that the Press Guidance seems to want us to look past any WMD implications for what was taken.”

-- another obvious question is what’s been done with the 350 tons, if anything, outside of Iraq? Our sources were unanimous in thinking that for reasons noted below, “it’s still in Iraq, and this is the most likely primary source of the explosives which have been used to blow up Humvees and in all the deadly car bomb attacks since the Occupation began.” Sources also discount any possibility except that “this was a highly organized operation using heavy equipment, and it was done right under our noses.”

More on this very soon ...

Talking Point Memo (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_24.php#003777)

[Yonivore]

So the coalition did fail to protect this armoury for at least two weeks.
They were rather busy fighting their way to the armory.

Unfortuantely for W, it's not as easy as when the administration noticed that the weapons were missing...

Talking Point Memo (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_24.php#003777)
The invasion began on March 19, 2003 -- less than 21 days later, Bagdad fell. The armory was reached on April 10, 2003 and the explosives were gone then.

Who the fuck is Chris Nelson and what the fuck is the Nelson Report. And, getting your arguments from something called "The Talking Points" isn't very wise.

You just get more stupid every day Nbadanallah

[Nbadan]

They were rather busy fighting their way to the armory.

Wrong. Guess again.

which is it?


The Iraqi interim government says that the explosives at al Qa Qaa went missing some time after April 9th 2003 because of "the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security."

(Remember, Baghdad fell on April 9th, so presumably that's a marker denoting simply that it happened at some point after the fall of the old regime.)

Today, Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita suggested that the weapons may have been taken from al Qa Qaa in the final days of the old regime or in fact during the war. (http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=31787)

Remember, the IAEA inspected the munitions in January 2003 (http://www.nola.com/newsflash/iraq/index.ssf?/base/international-18/109873704472511.xml&storylist=iraq) and then returned to the site and saw that the seals were in place in March, just a week or so before the war started. So Di Rita is claiming that the explosives were taken away in a two or three week period in late March of very early April 2003. If Drudge is to be trusted (yes, yes, I know), NBC will be running with some version of this storyline.

But there's another version of events.

A Pentagon "official who monitors developments in Iraq" told the Associated Press today that "US-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." (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1098677410357)

That of course would mean that the explosives were not removed from the facility until some point after the war. And that would be in line with what the Iraqis two weeks ago told the IAEA.

Let's review for a moment. We have a dispute here about a window of time covering two to four weeks, say roughly from March 10th to April 10th 2003 at the longest. But it's an important few weeks because it was over this span of time that the region went from the control of Saddam's government to the US military.

If the Di Rita hypothesis rests on the claim that the first US troops that visited al Qa Qaa found that the explosives had already been stolen or looted or otherwise secreted away. (He has, in fact, already said this.) And that would mean that the US government has known the explosives were missing for some eighteen months.

The problem is that the White House has spent the entire day claiming that they knew nothing about this until ten days ago, October 15th. Scott McClellan said this repeatedly during his gaggle with reporters this morning. Indeed, he went on to say the following: "Now [i.e., after the notification on October 15th], the Pentagon, upon learning of this, directed the multinational forces and the Iraqi survey group to look into this matter, and that's what they are currently doing."

So McClellan says that the Pentagon only just learned about this. And that's why they only now assigned the Iraq Survey Group to examine what happened at al Qa Qaa.

But Di Rita says that the US government has known about it for 18 months.

So which is it?

They've known about it since just after the war and kept it a secret? Or they just found out about it ten days ago and now they're on the case?

Talking Point Memo (http://talkingpointsmemo.com)

[Yonivore]

Once again, Nbadanallah, you've seized on a story and chosen to die on a hill that leads to nowhere.

The MSM and New Media are already counting the Times story as discredited and waiting for a retraction.

I know we can count on you to keep it going in here right up to election day...just like Terry McAuliffe promised on the Air National Guard story.

Have fun with it boyo.

[Nbadan]

Well, at least you didn't play the illuminati card this time as you and your elk frequently hijack the conversation too because your argument, and lack of facts. have fallen to pieces. As a Right-winger, I have no doubt that you would like this story to just suddenly go away. It's a political liability for W of immense proportions.

[Nbadan]

More good points from Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo (http://talkingpointsmemo.com) regarding Ammogate...

Could the al Qa Qaa debacle be a sinister and ingenious ploy on the part of the White House to give the public one more view of the goofball buck-passing that has been such an asset to the president's administration?

Look at the latest from Scott McClellan on Air Force One. This from CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/index.html)...


White House spokesman Scott McClellan said President Bush wants to determine what went wrong.

McClellan, on Air Force One, stressed that the missing explosives were not nuclear materials, and said the storage site was the responsibility of the interim Iraqi government, not the United States, as of June 28, when the United States turned over the nation's administration to the Iraqis.

The president wants to determine what went wrong.

This reminds me of when I wanted to know why my Palm Pilot stopped working after I dropped it in the bath tub.

Doesn't this capture Bush's entire presidency?

The thing happened more than a year ago, his administration has taken active steps to cover it up and now that the truth finally comes out, he 'wants to determine what went wrong.'

The idea of accepting responsibility for anything is simply alien to the man. He doesn't even have the good grace to scam us by finding a scapegoat to pin the blame on.

And what about Scott McClellan trying to pin it on the Iraqis?

Does he not read the newspapers or does he think everyone else to too stupid to remember what they just read in them this morning. The stuff was taken more than a year before the Iraqis took over the US occupation authority. And even the highly-cautious Times piece makes clear that Jerry Bremer was told about it no later than May of this year.

-- Josh Marshall

[Nbadan]

Well, the CNN story has been debunked for good now...

From the CNN article...


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.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.explosives/index.html)

..but that's not what the MSNBC article says at all. Here is what the article actually says...

NBC report:


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 were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6326367)

What?? CNN passing on obvious right-wing propaganda?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

You do realize that NBC were the ones with the video crew in Iraq, not MSNBC, right?

Two different organizations, two different reports. But then, you already knew this.

[Nbadan]

MSNBC is a affliate of a joint venture between NBC News and Microsoft...


MSNBC.com was launched in 1996 as part of a joint venture between Microsoft and General Electric's NBC.

ZDNet (http://news.zdnet.com/2110-3513_22-5266202.html)

[Nbadan]

Even more debunking of the CNN story in today's Washington Post...

Iraqi Explosives Missing, U.N. Is Told
U.S. Disputes Timing of Loss of Munitions Sealed by Inspectors at Weapons Facility

By Colum Lynch and Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 26, 2004; Page A18


UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 25 -- The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency reported Monday that massive quantities of high explosives at an Iraqi weapons facility have disappeared, including some material under U.N. seal because of its potential use to detonate a nuclear bomb.

The disclosure came less than a month after ElBaradei warned the council that U.N. satellite photos had detected "widespread and apparently systematic dismantlement" of buildings linked to Iraq's former covert nuclear weapons program. Those buildings "housed high precision equipment" that had been subject to U.N. monitoring during Saddam Hussein's reign.

The letter from Mohammad J. Abbas, a senior official in the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology, said that nearly 215 tons of HMX, 156 tons of RDX and 6 tons of PETN had gone missing after April 9, 2003, the day Baghdad fell to U.S. forces. The letter blamed a "lack of security" for the loss.

In satellite photos of the Qaqaa site taken in November 2003 and shown to The Washington Post on Monday by senior U.N. officials, signs of damage from previous U.S. bombing campaigns and looting were evident. But the facilities that stored HMX and RDX were still largely intact, according to the officials.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62731-2004Oct25.html)

[Marcus Bryant]

But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX

From yesterday's NY Times campaign ad for Kerry:


But apparently, little was done. A senior Bush administration official said that during the initial race to Baghdad, American forces "went through the bunkers, but saw no materials bearing the I.A.E.A. seal." It is unclear whether troops ever returned.

Also, we are not talking about stuff that a couple of guys could show up and throw in their backpacks. It would require a fleet of semis to move that shit. I'm sure that would have gone unnoticed. Yeah.

So much for the fading Old Gray Lady...

[spurster]

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/10/25/international/bomb650.jpg

The letter said "lost after 9 - 4 - 2003", so some official must have verified it on April 9, 2003. That seems clear enough to me.

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure, those explosives weren't there in April of 2003 and they weren't there in March of 2003 when US troops reached that site.

[Hook Dem]

Sure, those explosives weren't there in April of 2003 and they weren't there in March of 2003 when US troops reached that site.
What is it about that that the leftist ball swingers don't understand? :lol

[Marcus Bryant]

Apparently 60 Minutes was going to hit Bush with this next Sunday. (http://www.drudgereport.com/nbcw6.htm)

Also, of interest...



http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp

BOMB-GATE [Cliff May]
Sent to me by a source in the government: “The Iraqi explosives story is a fraud. These weapons were not there when US troops went to this site in 2003. The IAEA and its head, the anti-American Mohammed El Baradei, leaked a false letter on this issue to the media to embarrass the Bush administration. The US is trying to deny El Baradei a second term and we have been on his case for missing the Libyan nuclear weapons program and for weakness on the Iranian nuclear weapons program.”

(For the record, I don’t reveal my sources so if that means I end up sharing a cell at Sing-sing with Judy Miller, so be it.)
Posted at 10:00 AM

If that indeed is the case then we have yet another attack on the Bush administration by the old guard media utilizing fake document(s). Great.

[Nbadan]

For the record, I don’t reveal my sources so if that means I end up sharing a cell at Sing-sing with Judy Miller, so be it.)

Nice spin, an anonymous source over established sources.

:lol

[Marcus Bryant]

Like NBC?

[Nbadan]

I already told you, NBC is Right-wing TV.

[Nbadan]

How many times do I have to debunk the NBC story? Or are you just posting out of your ass?

[Marcus Bryant]

You've yet to "debunk" the NBC story. All you've proffered is that NBC is "right wing".

Standard drivel from your nosy ass.

[Marcus Bryant]

So great, the NY Times ran a story with forged documents and a non-US citizen with an axe to grind against the US government as their sources. Apparently he was talking with 60 Minutes who wanted to air it this Sunday night, a scant 48 hours before the (scheduled) end of the election. That would have been the second story critical of the Bush administration aired by CBS based on forged documents in this campaign.

Pretty fucking clear to me what's going on. Perhaps sooner or later some of you will figure it out before you quote the NY Times again.



http://www.drudgereport.com/nbcw6.htm

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE OCT 26 2004 11:02:38 ET XXXXX


In 1992 it was the Iran Contra charges brought days before the election... In 2000 it was the DUI charges a few days before the vote... And Now...


60 MINS PLANNED BUSH MISSING EXPLOSIVES STORY FOR ELECTION EVE

News of missing explosives in Iraq -- first reported in April 2003 -- was being resurrected for a 60 MINUTES election eve broadcast designed to knock the Bush administration into a crisis mode.

Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of 60 MINUTES, said in a statement that "our plan was to run the story on October 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold..."

Elizabeth Jensen at the LOS ANGELES TIMES details on Tuesday how CBS NEWS and 60 MINUTES lost the story [which repackaged previously reported information on a large cache of explosives missing in Iraq, first published and broadcast in 2003].

The story instead debuted in the NYT. The paper slugged the story about missing explosives from April 2003 as "exclusive."

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. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.explosives/index.html)

According to NBCNEWS, the explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived. [VIDEO CLIP] (http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/nytrogate.html)

It is not clear who exactly shopped an election eve repackaging of the missing explosives story.

The LA TIMES claims: The source on the story first went to 60 MINUTES but also expressed interest in working with the NY TIMES... "The tip was received last Wednesday."

CBSNEWS' plan to unleash the story just 24 hours before election day had one senior Bush official outraged.

"Darn, I wanted to see the forged documents to show how this was somehow covered up," the Bush source, who asked not to be named, mocked, recalling last months CBS airing of fraudulent Bush national guard letters.

Developing...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
(c)DRUDGE REPORT 2004
Not for reproduction without permission of the author


Wow, the Kerry campaign already has an ad about this. Rather convenient.



http://www.drudgereport.com/dnce.htm

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE OCT 26, 2004 13:04:28 ET XXXXX

KERRY/EDWARDS CAMPAIGN PREPARING CAMPAIGN AD ON MISSING EXPLOSIVES

**Exclusive**

:30 spot called "obligation"

JOHN KERRY: "The obligation of a Commander in Chief is to keep our country safe. In Iraq, George Bush has overextended our troops..."

JOHN KERRY: "...and now failed to secure 380 tons of deadly explosives."

JOHN KERRY: "The kind used for attacks in Iraq, and for terrorist bombings."

JOHN KERRY: "His Iraq misjudgments put our soldiers at risk, and make our country less secure. And all he offers is more of the same. As President, I'll bring a fresh start to protect our troops and our nation. I'm John Kerry and I approved this message.

Developing...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
(c)DRUDGE REPORT 2004
Not for reproduction without permission of the author

So what's the backup 'October surprise' that the Kerry campaign and their sycophants in the media have ready to go? Hmmmm.

'Fake but accurate' journalism is fucking awesome.

[CrazyOne]

MB - Clarification of earlier posts where you alluded to nasty things about Guido - Dan and I have a side bet on the election, 500 points from the loser to the winner, and all the loser's vbookie points if the winner takes more than 52% of the total vote.

Now go do 3 Hail Marys (the football must travel at least 30 yards through the air) and wash out your keyboard with soap. The Padre has spoken. Don't make me go Latin on you... :angel

[Marcus Bryant]

Breaking news (http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612291195)

[1369]

Yikes, Baghdad Bob (Or whatever his name was) shacks up with Nbadan?

It's on the internet, it must be true.

[xrayzebra]

MB - Clarification of earlier posts where you alluded to nasty things about Guido - Dan and I have a side bet on the election, 500 points from the loser to the winner, and all the loser's vbookie points if the winner takes more than 52% of the total vote.

Now go do 3 Hail Marys (the football must travel at least 30 yards through the air) and wash out your keyboard with soap. The Padre has spoken. Don't make me go Latin on you... :angel


Poor NbaDan. He lives by the Dem-o-craps and he dies by the Dem-0-craps.
Padre, he has no idea of what you speak. God is not allowed in his world.
Kerry is the poorest excuse for a man that has ever existed. I thought Carter
was bad, heck he looks like a world leader compared to Kerry. Just maybe,
maybe, he, Kerry, knows how to hit the nail on the head while being Carter's
helper. Nawh, asking too much. The rich lady, his wife, wouldn't allow that.
:elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant

P.S. Dan, the mouth, Rather must reallly feel good, he nows has company,
"The New York Times" the paper of record.

[Yonivore]

Breaking news (http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612291195)
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp



WHAT ODD TIMING BY MR. ELBARADEI! [10/26 03:04 PM]

Well, isn’t this interesting?

Agence France Presse, Sep 27, 2004: (http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040927105109.rrmuiluz.html)


A new board of governors of the UN nuclear watchdog met in Vienna Monday to draw up procedures for electing a new director general, with current chief Mohamed ElBaradei seeking a third term despite US opposition.

ElBaradei put his hat into the ring for a third term as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) earlier this month despite opposition from the United States and possibly other top UN funding states.

His current four-year term expires on November 30 next year, and US officials have said the United States, the largest contributor to the United Nations, supports the position of the Geneva group of top 10 contributors that heads of international organizations should not serve more than two terms.

"This policy has nothing to do with the director general's qualifications. The United States thinks that he's done a very good job leading the agency at a very difficult time, but it's simply a matter of principle and good governance," a Western official familiar with the US position said...

Applications for candidacies will close by December 31 and the board will seek to have the new director general named by a meeting in June 2005, in order to be formally elected at the next IAEA general conference in September

The director's general's new term would begin on December 1, 2005.


(ElBaradei has had this job since 1997 — hey, wasn’t that a year before India and Pakistan announced they had the bomb? And since then we’ve seen North Korea dishonor its treaties and get nukes, the A.Q. Khan network try to sell nuclear material to any and all buyers, and Iran is on the nuclear doorstep. This is a “very good job”? How bad do you have to be to get fired around here? What is this, “Mary Mapes rules”?)

Anyway, so in late September, the United States makes clear it doesn’t want a third term for ElBaradei. We read in the New York Times story (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html) that started all this:


“In May, an internal I.A.E.A. memorandum warned that terrorists might be helping "themselves to the greatest explosives bonanza in history…
Early this month, Dr. ElBaradei put public pressure on the interim Iraqi government to start the process of accounting for nuclear-related materials still ostensibly under I.A.E.A. supervision, including the Qaqaa stockpile.

"Iraq is obliged," he wrote to the president of the Security Council on Oct. 1, "to declare semiannually changes that have occurred or are foreseen."

The agency, Dr. ElBaradei added pointedly, "has received no such notifications or declarations from any state since the agency's inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq in March 2003."


Gee! In late September the U.S. says no third term for ElBaradei, and Oct. 1 he writes to Iraq demanding answers about this old weapons depot!

Then, in a memo that appears to be dated Oct. 10, the Iraqis respond that the explosives are missing… and it just happens to show up on the front page of the New York Times eight days before Election Day. An article that quotes a European diplomat as saying “Dr. ElBaradei is "extremely concerned" about the potentially "devastating consequences" of the vanished stockpile.”

I’ll bet he is! He’s so concerned, he felt a need to make this issue that he’s been quiet about since spring 2003 and press the Iraqi government for an immediate answer that he knows will make the Bush administration look bad!

One has to wonder - has John Kerry or a member of his staff indicated they would keep ElBaradei around for another term? We know ElBaradei wants a change in U.S. policy on his third term.

ElBaradei is doing everything he can to help Kerry. What’s in it for ElBaradei?

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp



MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT IAEA COMPETENCE IN IRAQ [10/26 03:20 PM]

Hmm. We read from MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/) that Mohamed ElBaradei is making a full-court press, insisting these explosives were taken by looters after the invasion (how can he know for certain?):


In a letter to the U.N. Security Council on Monday, IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei attributed the disappearance to a “lack of security” at Al-Qaqaa after the U.S.-led war in Iraq broke out in March 2003...

ElBaradei told the council the IAEA had kept the theft quiet since learning of it from Iraqi authorities on Oct. 10 to give the U.S.-led multinational force and Iraq’s interim government “an opportunity to attempt to recover the explosives before this matter was put into the public domain.”

But since the disappearance was reported by the New York Times on Monday, he said he wanted the Security Council to have the letter that he received from Mohammed J. Abbas, a senior official at Iraq’s Ministry of Science and Technology, reporting the theft of the explosives.

The materials were lost through “the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security,” the letter said.

ElBaradei’s cover letter to the council said that the HMX had been under IAEA seal and that the RDX and PETN were “both subject to regular monitoring of stock levels.”

“The presence of these amounts was verified by the IAEA in January 2003,” he said.

Ah, but the thing is, according to the IAEA itself, things under IAEA seal in Iraq had a tendency to disappear. Let's take a look at this report (http://www.hri.org/cgi-bin/brief?/news/world/undh/97-12-09.undh.html) from 1997:


Iraq has returned high explosives it had removed from the Al Qa Qaa facility, according to the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In a letter to the United Nations Secretary-General, Mohamed Elbaradei says that in accordance with its notification of IAEA, Iraq had removed IAEA seals from five of the six high-explosive bunkers at the Al Qa Qaa facility and dispersed approximately 50 tonnes out of a total of 228 tonnes of high explosives (HMX) to other locations at Al Qa Qaa. Mr. Elbaradei says that IAEA inspectors have witnessed the return of this material to its original storage location and have taken measures to account for the original inventory. "There are no indications that any of this material has been diverted", the IAEA Director-General says.

In addition to these activities, other IAEA personnel and experts from United Nations Member States have serviced and upgraded the video surveillance systems at two facilities. They have also carried out an extensive campaign for the collection of environmental samples...

Following an impasse caused by Iraq's objection to the United Nations weapons inspectors, IAEA inspectors returned to Baghdad on 21 November and resumed their inspections the following day.

Notice that this message doesn't say anything about why the Iraqis broke the seal and moved these explosives. The tough, watchful eyes of the IAEA state, "Don't worry, we found it and the Iraqis put it back."

All of this comes as Captain Ed (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002869.php) and one of his readers, retired Army Reserve Captain Ian Dodgson have used simple logic to determine what it would take to remove all of these explosives.

They conclude this operation would take the resources of approximately 100 men, for a period longer than two weeks, the intelligence to know exactly where the "right" explosives were hidden and a means of breaching steel doors and concrete of an Army Supply Plant.

But all this was pulled off by a bunch of looters, right under the noses of the coalition forces in the area. Right.

[SpursWoman]

MB - Clarification of earlier posts where you alluded to nasty things about Guido - Dan and I have a side bet on the election, 500 points from the loser to the winner, and all the loser's vbookie points if the winner takes more than 52% of the total vote.

Now go do 3 Hail Marys (the football must travel at least 30 yards through the air) and wash out your keyboard with soap. The Padre has spoken. Don't make me go Latin on you... :angel



FYI - vBookie $$ can't be transferred from one account to another, it has to be set up as an actual vBookie event.

:)

[SpursWoman]

Breaking news (http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612291195)



:lmao


I've been looking for that link forever. :spin

[JoeChalupa]

Must learn to be patient and not over react.

[Nbadan]

Anyone see NBC News backtracking on their story today? Told ya so.

[JoeChalupa]

Get yourself outta here!! Are you serious?

[Marcus Bryant]

Not to my knowledge, but then again, I'm not sitting at home watching TV.

[1369]

NBC recanting their story? I looked on MSNBC and it seems they are sticking with their original claims that the 101st stopped off at the base and then moved on shortly thereafter. I might be missing something, but it doesn't look like a reversal.

Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/)


WASHINGTON - The whereabouts of nearly 380 tons of high-powered explosives that vanished in Iraq remained a mystery Tuesday, even as the timing of their disappearance was becoming an issue in the final days of the U.S. presidential election.

In reporting the theft on Monday, the International Atomic Energy Agency said that the explosives had been looted from the sprawling Al-Qaqaa military base, about 30 miles south of Baghdad, since January 2003 due to a “lack of security” at the former Iraqi military facility.

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.

Reporter Lai Ling Jew, who was embedded with the Army’s 101st Airborne, Second Brigade, said Tuesday on MSNBC TV that the news team stayed at the Al-Qaqaa base for about 24 hours.

‘No move to secure the weapons’
“There wasn’t a search,” she said. “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 headed 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.”

There was disagreement among U.S. officials over when the explosives might have disappeared.

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, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

But other Pentagon officials, also speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested that the explosives could have been hidden elsewhere before the war. They also stressed that there is no evidence HMX or RDX have been used against coalition forces in Iraq.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, in an exclusive interview with NBC News on Monday during a visit to South Korea, refused to comment on the timing of the disappearance.

Powell: Facts of disappearance unclear
"I don't know that we know what happened to it or the exact disposition," he said. "And I'll wait for those looking into this to come up with the answer as to what was there, when it was discovered missing, and where it might be."

State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said that coalition forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at Al Qaqaa facility after the war, looking for weapons of mass destruction. He said the troops found none, but did see signs of looting.

HMX and RDX can be used to demolish buildings, down jetliners, produce warheads for missiles and detonate nuclear weapons. HMX and RDX are key ingredients in plastic explosives, such as C-4 and Semtex — substances so powerful that Libyan terrorists needed just 1 pound to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 170 people.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry seized on the disappearance of the explosives in a campaign speech on Monday, calling it “one of the greatest blunders” of the war in Iraq.

“George W. Bush, who talks tough ... and brags about making America safer, has once again failed to deliver,” he told supporters in Dover, N.H. “After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq, this president failed to guard those stockpiles.”

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.

Investigation under way
“Remember, at the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom there was some looting, and some of it was organized,” McClellan said. “There were munitions caches spread throughout the country, and so these are all issues that are being looked into by the multinational forces and the Iraqi Survey Group.”

He also emphasized that coalition forces have seized vast amount of munitions in Iraq.

“We have destroyed more than 243,000 munitions,” he said. “We’ve secured another nearly 163,000 that will be destroyed.”

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp



MIKLASZEWSKI'S NEW REPORT [10/26 03:56 PM]

Marshall says Miklaszewski's report from last night is "no longer operative" based on the Pentagon correspondent's recent comments on MSNBC. I'd say that is an overstatement. To use one of Kerry's favorite words, let's say Miklaszewski's account is more nuanced.


Following up on that story from last night, military officials tell NBC News that on April 10, 2003, when the Second Brigade of the 101st Airborne entered the Al QaQaa weapons facility, south of Baghdad, that those troops were actually on their way to Baghdad, that they were not actively involved in the search for any weapons, including the high explosives, HMX and RDX. The troops did observe stock piles of conventional weapons but no HMX or RDX. And because the Al Qaqaa facility is so huge, it's not clear that those troops from the 101st were actually anywhere near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX. Three months earlier, during an inspection of the Al Qaqaa compound, the International Atomic Energy Agency secured and sealed 350 metric tons of HMX and RDX. Then in March, shortly before the war began, the I.A.E.A. conducted another inspection and found that the HMX stockpile was still intact and still under seal. But inspectors were unable to inspect the RDX stockpile and could not verify that the RDX was still at the compound.

Pentagon officials say elements of the 101st Airborne did conduct a thorough search of several facilities around the Al QaQaa compound for several weeks during the month of April in search of WMD. They found no WMD. And Pentagon officials say it's not clear at that time whether those other elements of the 101st actually searched the Al QaQaa compound.

Now, Pentagon officials say U.S. troops and members of the Iraq Survey Group did arrive at the Al QaQaa compound on May 27. And when they did, they found no HMX or RDX or any other weapons under seal at the time. Now, the Iraqi government is officially said that the high explosives were stolen by looters. Pentagon officials claim it's possible — they're not sure, they say, but it's possible that Saddam Hussein himself ordered that these high explosives be removed and hidden before the war. What is clear is that the 350 metric tons of high explosives are still missing, and that the U.S. or Iraqi governments or international inspectors, for that matter, cannot say with any certainty where they are today.


I have a question about that first comment, that "it's not clear that those troops from the 101st were actually anywhere near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX."

A gentleman sending me e-mail from a ".mil" address writes:


But I was there at Al QaQaa on April 10th with the 101st, I can rest assure you that [NBC producer interviewed on MSNBC earlier today] Lai Ling Jew is lying about it, she seems to be expressing a convenient contrary opinion of the time. The very first thing we do when we move into an area is clear it of any enemy combatants, including going inside warehouses full of ordinance, which we did immediately when we reached there.

Another gentleman sending me e-mail from a ".mil" address writes:


Operational plans in modern warfare are continually rolling and are available to combat commanders in a real time network environment. The original pre-invasion Operation Plans listed the Al-QaQaa weapons depot as a priority security site. After the 101st Airborne Division inspected the site, the security priority was downgraded and the Operational Plan was modified.

So first, I would assume that before the 101st stopped at the site for 24 hours, they would at least send guys with guns through to make sure there weren't any hostile forces at al-QaQaa. I don't care how big the site is, no commanding officer is going to leave a bunch of buildings unchecked for badguys who might try to attack his guys. Also, wouldn't "securing" this site mean checking for booby traps? Wouldn't our guys want to know what's in these buildings that they're walking around?

And I would assume that the process of securing al-QaQaa — "a priority security site" would include checking for explosives in all these buildings they're securing. So that the message, "hey, guys, careful if we get attacked and have to defend this position - there are 350 tons of high-grade explosives over in that storage bunker over there" gets to everybody who needs to hear it.

[Nbadan]

NEW YORK - An NBC News reporter embedded with a U.S. army unit that seized an Iraqi installation three weeks into the war said Tuesday that she saw no signs that the Americans searched for the powerful explosives that are now missing from the site.

Reporter Lai Ling Jew, who was embedded with the Army's 101st Airborne, Second Brigade, said her news team stayed at the Al-Qaqaa base for about 24 hours.


"There wasn't a search," she told MSNBC, an NBC cable news channel. "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."

Yahoo News (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041026/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_weapons_nbc&cid=540&ncid=1480)

[spurster]

100 men over 2 weeks to move 380 tons? One man can move several tons in a day, but it depends on how it was packaged and how far it needed to be moved.

No one seems to know when the stuff got moved. It seems that the area wasn't thoroughly searched until May 2003, If it was moved before the war, you would think that we could find out from the top former leaders they have captured. You would think we would have some clues, but instead it has to become a campaign issue to become important and to try to reconstruct what happened.

Security was bad during and after the invasion. Security is still bad now. Horrible decisions have been made that screwed things up. First, we were seriously undermanned and still are. Second, we disbanded the Iraqi army instead of coopting it. Third, we are punchdrunk slow training a replacement force.

Since the invasion, the US has done a good job with a lot of the weaponry, but a lot has disappeared too due to poor security and control. We have delivered a lot of weapons to our true enemy, AQ.

[Marcus Bryant]

That's assuming that all of the material was even there when the troops first arrived. The IAEA can't fully confirm that:


Following up on that story from last night, military officials tell NBC News that on April 10, 2003, when the Second Brigade of the 101st Airborne entered the Al QaQaa weapons facility, south of Baghdad, that those troops were actually on their way to Baghdad, that they were not actively involved in the search for any weapons, including the high explosives, HMX and RDX. The troops did observe stock piles of conventional weapons but no HMX or RDX. And because the Al Qaqaa facility is so huge, it's not clear that those troops from the 101st were actually anywhere near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX. Three months earlier, during an inspection of the Al Qaqaa compound, the International Atomic Energy Agency secured and sealed 350 metric tons of HMX and RDX. Then in March, shortly before the war began, the I.A.E.A. conducted another inspection and found that the HMX stockpile was still intact and still under seal. But inspectors were unable to inspect the RDX stockpile and could not verify that the RDX was still at the compound.

Removing that material would have required a significant number of personnel, the requisite equipment, a significant number of truckloads, and a significant amount of time. It also would have required the ability to open up the storage areas to begin with. The most logical explanation is that Hussein ordered the removal of the material after the IAEA inspectors left but prior to the invasion and that this story has resurfaced again because there is a presidential election in a week.

[Nbadan]

because there is a presidential election in a week.

:lmao

Give me a fuckin break. What the hell did Saddam care about hiding this until the Presidential election? You really think that Saddam somehow crafted this so that the U.S. would keep this from the Iraqi Iterm Government, so that they didn't have to report it to the Internation Atomic Agency until late October? And you accuse me of being a conspiracy theorists.

[Hook Dem]

Dan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! take your medicine. :lol

[Marcus Bryant]

This is not a new story. I didn't say Hussein moved it because of the 2004 US presidential election. Seeing as how the IAEA head is the likely source for this old story it's quite relevant to point out his motivations.

And yes, you are a fucking weirdo.


Anyways, more holes in the NBC 'recantation':

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp




YET ANOTHER SERVICEMAN REFUTES THE TIMES ACCOUNT [10/26 05:23 PM]

From yet another Kerry Spot reader with a ".mil" e-mail address:


You are correct in your bottom line conclusion. Here is a second follow up.
I was serving as a [identifying information removed by the Kerry Spot] staff member during the time in question. The Commander on the site had complete real time intelligence on what to expect and possibly find at the Al-QaQaa depot. The ordinance in question was not found when teams were sent in to inspect and secure the area. When this information was relayed, Operational plans were adjusted and the unit moved forward. Had the ordinance in question been discovered, a security team would have been left in place.




MORE FROM A KERRY SPOT READER WHO WAS THERE [10/26 05:07 PM]

More from a Kerry Spot reader with a ".mil" e-mail address, stating he was among the soldiers who secured Al QaQaa on April 10th with the 101st:


I can tell you what happened at my squad level. When we arrived there, humvees with Mark-19's and other mounted weapons immediately secured the parameter with appropriate manpower backup. On the foot level we broke up into squads and went building to building and cleared them; mind you, we couldn't do them all. But we found what had been typical finds, caches of AK-47's, artillery rounds and bullets. There was absolutely no talk of a big find, and what I could sense no worries of anything that should have been there. Of course, we were still worried about the possibilities of chemical weapons but they never panned out.

I am a little perturbed at the gross mischaracterization of what went on there. From what I remember of the NBC crew, they did not go out with us, and they may have in fact been asked to not to go on the search with us, due to the dangers that may have possibily come up. Now this part is my opinion, but don't you think that if they had gone out with us they would have video?


Thanks to this guy for what he did, and sharing what he could.

You read words like this, from a guy who has put it on the line for his country, and wonder who heck thinks they have the right as a Monday Morning Quarterback to tell guys like him they botched the job.

[Nbadan]

:lol A poster on a right-wing web site. Your as pathetic as Rush Limpballs.

Did you hear him use the lords name in vein today on his show? Can't wait till this bastard is sitting next to Martha Stewart rotting in jail.

[Marcus Bryant]

1. I don't listen to "Rush Limpballs". Apparently you do. Poor bastard.

2. Given what you think are worthy sources to post in this forum what I have posted is the Gospel Truth.

3. Speaking of being "pathetic", you have the market cornered on that considering your history.

[Useruser666]

I don't think he said Saddam planned that it would show up now. I don't think anyone can exactly tell you when and where those explosives were at any one time. Saying that inspectors saw them there is pretty sketchy considering the fact that Saddam had been dodging various inspections for WMD for so long. Then there is the fact that the goverment under Saddam was not the most stable and the military not the most loyal. That said, it would have been nice to have control over such dangerous stuff. I highly doubt that it was still there when the US troops came to it's supposed location.

[Nbadan]

Of course you do, because if you admited that W and his Bushiveks royally fucked up in Iraq that would create such cognitive dissonance that would force you to back-track and re-investigate every questionable claim this administration has every made, and your not gonna do that because your in denial.

[Marcus Bryant]

Sorry kiddo, I don't listen to talk radio for my news just like I don't rely on the obviously partisan election year reporting of the supposedly objective New York Times or the extremist "democraticunderground". If you want to accuse me of having a subscription to The Economist and National Review, then perhaps you might actually be correct.

Until then, shut the fuck up already. If you aren't really this stupid in real life then the joke ceased being funny a few years ago.

[Nbadan]

In a story headlined "Bombshell for Bush," The Independent calls news that nearly 380 tons of explosives went missing from an Iraqi weapons base after the war "a massive pre-election embarrassment for the Bush administration."

The New York Times, which first reported the story late Sunday, wrote that the Al Qaqaa weapons facility (30 miles south of Baghdad) "was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday."

......


Salon quotes Joseph Cirincione, director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, as saying: "This is thousands and thousands of potential terrorist attacks. ... It's like they knocked off the Fort Knox of explosives."

The Boston Globe quotes another expert on the significance of the Al Qaqaa site.

"This is not just any old warehouse in Iraq that happened to have explosives in it; this was a leading location for developing nuclear weapons before the first Gulf War," said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a nonprofit organization that has followed Iraq's attempts to procure weapons of mass destruction for more than a decade. "The fact that it had been left unsecured is very, very discouraging. It would be like invading the US in to order to get rid of and not securing Los Alamos or Livermore ."

Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1026/dailyUpdate.html)

[Marcus Bryant]

Right, which is why the troops searched it when they got there and the commanders had the info on what they were supposed to be looking for. Duh.

[Nbadan]

Right, which is why the troops searched it when they got there

The imbedded NBC reporter you used before now says that the weapons depot wasn't searched. Of course, that shouldn't stop you from spreading disinformation.

[Marcus Bryant]

That was the producer and all she said was that she saw the troops leave from where she was and go look at the site. Sounds like a search to me.

They were there for 24 hours. I'm sure the facilities which the IAEA identified as containing those particular high explosives would have been the first ones sought out. And again, the IAEA can't confirm that one of those two types of explosives was even there before the war started.

[Hook Dem]

Bottom line is all of this is old news and it was desperation that brought it up again. Chalk that up to apathy. In other words....lets scare 'em!

[Yonivore]

Bottom line is all of this is old news and it was desperation that brought it up again. Chalk that up to apathy. In other words....lets scare 'em!
The bigger story is that it is becoming apparent that, just like in the CBS fiasco, the Times, CBS, and Kerry campaigns were complicit in this last minute charade.

[Yonivore]

The imbedded NBC reporter you used before now says that the weapons depot wasn't searched. Of course, that shouldn't stop you from spreading disinformation.
You don't have to search for 400 tons of explosives...it's either there or it's not. It wasn't.

[Hook Dem]

You don't have to search for 400 tons of explosives...it's either there or it's not. It wasn't.
Now, that just plain makes sense!

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

we disbanded the Iraqi army instead of coopting it.

So you thought that the guys who just got done shooting at us should be asked to turn around and join rank? Talk about asking for a bullet in the back of the head.

[spurster]

The US generals were working out a deal with some officers of the Iraqi army before Bremer called it off.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/international/21war.html

Debate Lingering on Decision to Dissolve the Iraqi Military
By MICHAEL R. GORDON

Published: October 21, 2004

When Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus flew to Baghdad on June 14, 2003, he had a blunt message for the American-led occupation authority. As the commander of the 101st Airborne Division, General Petraeus had been working tirelessly to win the support of Iraqis in Mosul and the neighboring provinces in northern Iraq.

But the authority's decree to abolish the Iraqi Army and to forgo paying 350,000 soldiers had jolted much of Iraq. Riots had broken out in cities. Just the day before, 16 of General Petraeus's soldiers had been wounded trying to put down a violent demonstration.

Arriving at the huge Abu Ghraib North Palace for a ceremony, General Petraeus spied Walter B. Slocombe, an adviser to L. Paul Bremer III, who headed the authority. Sidling up to him, General Petraeus said that the decision to leave the soldiers without a livelihood had put American lives at risk.

More than a year later, Mr. Bremer's disbanding of the Iraqi Army still casts a shadow over the occupation of Iraq. The American military had been counting on using Iraqi soldiers to help rebuild the country and impose order along its borders. Instead, as a violent insurgency convulsed the nation, United States forces found themselves deprived of a way to put an Iraqi face on the occupation.

While Mr. Bremer soon reversed himself on paying salaries to the ex-soldiers, his decision to formally dissolve the Iraqi military and methodically build a new one, battalion by battalion, still ranks as one of the most contentious issues of the post-war.

Mr. Slocombe argues that the move was necessary to establish an Iraqi military that was not tainted by corruption and was acceptable to ethnic groups that had long been repressed by Saddam Hussein's military. He also says that it was the only possible course because so many Iraqi soldiers had fled their posts and drifted back into the population and military bases had been picked clean by looters.

But senior American generals were privately urging a much different approach, according to interviews with military and civilian officials. Top commanders were meeting secretly with former Iraqi officers to discuss the best way to rebuild the force and recall Iraqi soldiers back to duty when Mr. Bremer arrived in Baghdad with his plan.

"It was absolutely the wrong decision," said Col. Paul Hughes of the Army, who served as an aide to Jay Garner, a retired three-star general and the first civilian administrator of Iraq. "We changed from being a liberator to an occupier with that single decision,'' he said. "By abolishing the army, we destroyed in the Iraqi mind the last symbol of sovereignty they could recognize and as a result created a significant part of the resistance."

[read above link for more]

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Wow, another "fluff" piece from the NYT.

A lot of those same army thugs that article is bemoaning the loss of were people who were pointing guns at Iraqi people and telling them to go shoot at American troops.

But hey, we can work with them[/convoluted logic]

[Nbadan]

Some of these guys will go to hell and back to protect George Bush. The Al Qa-Qaa complex is the biggest in Iraq with many bunkers, so it is easy to believe that the 101st could have spent 24 hours at the complex and unless they had explicit orders to search for these specific explosives, could have completely missed them.

We know from the imbedded NBC reporter whom the Right-wingers themselves tried to as a alibi for this fiasco that the 101st didn't go into search mode when they arrived at Al Qa-Qaa. They certainly didn't take any steps to secure the complex despite the presense of a substantial amount of arsenal. It's uncertain were the 101st even knew that these volitale explosives were even there.

To make matters worse, the administration tried to keep this from the Iraqi interm Government so that they wouldn't report the loss to the International Atomic Nuclear Agency, and thus make it public before the Nov 2nd presidential election. This administration put politics above the safety of our troops, and allowed insurgents to gain possession of explosives that could be used in Nuclear weapons.

[Nbadan]

snip>
"There was an utter lack of curiosity to follow up on what was well-known to the U.N.," said David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector.

"There was a systematic failure of the military, which overran the country and left all these explosives behind without protecting its rear," he said. "The military should have had the sense to either secure high explosives and armaments or blow them up as they went through."

The Al-Qaqaa explosives included HMX and RDX, key components in plastic explosives, which insurgents in Iraq have used in repeated bomb attacks on the U.S.-led multinational force.
<snip>

"Our greatest concern from both a proliferation standpoint and from a standpoint of danger to human beings was Al-Qaqaa," the IAEA's Fleming said.

Weapons experts are questioning why Al-Qaqaa - once a key facility in Saddam Hussein's effort to build a nuclear bomb - wasn't under 24-hour guard.

The facility was considered "the pre-eminent site for high explosive stockpiles," a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Kansas City (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/10020082.htm?1c)

Well, so much for Scotty's theory that it was no big deal, they could have gotten these kinds of weapons anywhere. BTW, has Scotty been allowed to talk to the press today? There's no transcript up at the White House site. I guess they realize the more they open their mouths, the deeper they sink.

[Nbadan]

Yet another confirmation that coalition troops did not consider guarding the Al Qa-Qaa military depot a major priority in the war...



By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | October 26, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Iraqi officials reported that thieves looted 377 tons of powerful explosives from an unguarded site after the US-led invasion last year, the top UN nuclear official said yesterday. And a former weapons inspector said he had counted about 100 other unguarded weapons sites that may have been stripped of munitions for use in the wave of attacks against US soldiers and Iraqi civilians.
<snip>

''This is not just any old warehouse in Iraq that happened to have explosives in it; this was a leading location for developing nuclear weapons before the first Gulf War," said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a nonprofit organization that has followed Iraq's attempts to procure weapons of mass destruction for more than a decade. ''The fact that it had been left unsecured is very, very discouraging. It would be like invading the US in to order to get rid of and not securing Los Alamos or Livermore ."
<snip>

''The military did not view guarding these sites as their responsibility," David Kay said, recalling that he witnessed US troops guarding the gates of the Tuwaitha nuclear facility while Iraq civilians carried away radioactive pipes and metal drums through other exits.

''There just were not enough troops to guard the number of sites. It was just crazy."

At the time, there was no major insurgency and US military officials felt the war had been won, Kay said, so the Department of Defense did not fear that the weapons that disappeared in widespread looting would be used against US soldiers.

Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/10/26/explosives_were_looted_after_iraq_invasion?mode=PF )

[Yonivore]

Yet another confirmation that coalition troops did not consider guarding the Al Qa-Qaa military depot a major priority in the war...

Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/10/26/explosives_were_looted_after_iraq_invasion?mode=PF )
Hey Bozo, the explosives were GONE. Why guard an empty building?

http://boortz.com/images/kaboom.gif

[CosmicCowboy]

Funny...

one of the reasons the US "rushed" the war was that we had clear and unequivocal sattelite recon evidence that Sadaam was gutting and dispersing the weapons stored in bunker complexes just like this one...

yet the Kerry camp wants to criticize that we didn't dither and negotiate LONGER and thus allowing MORE of these complexes to be gutted and the contents hidden...

am I the only one that sees the inconsistency in this position?

[LandShark]

If there is anything consistent about Kerry and the Democrats, it is their inconsistency.

[Marcus Bryant]

Oh sure, but don't let logic and reason dissuade you.

Hussein wasn't a threat because he didn't have devastating weapons which he could put in the hands of terrorists but the Bush administration fucked up because the devastating weapons Hussein had ended up missing. Makes sense to me.

Once upon a time Kerry advocated a broad multi-pronged strategy for dealing with Islamofascist terrorism which also included addressing the threat Hussein posed to the United States while we dealt with the al Qaeda terrorist network. Now he makes the war on Islamofascist terrorism out to be solely about eliminating bin Ladin, as if that would end the terrorist threat.

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001216.php

[boutons]

"Hussein wasn't a threat because he didn't have devastating weapons which he could Put in the hands of terrorists but the Bush administration fucked up because the devastating weapons Hussein had ended up missing. Makes sense to me."

The explosives that shrub/rummy/cia lost were not weaponized or munitions, just (very powerful) explosives, tied down/locked up by the inspectors/sanctions for 10 years, ie, effectively safe from enemy hands.

In that state, they represented no threat to anybody, esp not the "immediate threat to USA" that shrub lied about, esp no threat as compared to the real and immediate terrorist enemies outside of Iraq. Saddam couldn't deliver Scuds to Isreal with any effect in 1991, how was he to weaponize and deliver these explosives in 2003 against the USA 1000's of KM distant?

Now that shrub let the explosives get into enemy hands as part of his bogus war that disrupted the static, effective debilitation of Iraq, the explosives are now being weaponized, and used to kill Americans and Iraqis in Iraq, and very probably exported to the entire terrorist networks.

The big boom of the cartoon in this thread is reallly 1000's of little booms in Iraq, and the big boom(s) from these lost explosives will be heard for years to come against US embassies, ships, buildings, installations, and allies.

shrub's bogus Iraq war is a recruitment and explosives/munitions-equipping campaign for terrorists inside and outside of Iraq. America and world is absolutely not safer from the bogus Iraq war.

[Marcus Bryant]

Hussein could have easily passed on those explosives to whoever he pleased. The IAEA didn't certify that one type of high explosive that had been there previously was there in early March of 2003 before the invasion.

What exactly did the IAEA and the UN offer as a deterrent? An angry letter?

In the aftermath of the 1st Gulf War the UN had an opportunity to destroy those weapons but they didn't because they bought Hussein's bogus argument that the explosives were needed for "mining" purposes.

Also Hussein was buying his way out of the sanctions scheme and if he 'came clean' about his WMD programs which not even his own generals knew the true state of then what would have been the justification to maintain a military presence in the region? There wouldn't be and your side would argue that Hussein wasn't a threat and we should reallocate our resources elsewhere (which is precisely what Hussein wanted all along).

And again, Hussein supposedly didn't have devastating weaponry that concerned us but Bush lost the devastating weaponry that should concern us? Consistency, nay is you.

[Marcus Bryant]

Saddam couldn't deliver Scuds to Isreal with any effect in 1991, how was he to weaponize and deliver these explosives in 2003 against the USA 1000's of KM distant?

By giving it to those who could. Duh.

[CosmicCowboy]

BUSH REBUKES KERRY OVER 'MISSING EXPLOSIVES' ATTACK
Wed Oct 27 2004 11:59:11 ET

Bush at rally in Pennsylvania:

"After repeatedly calling Iraq the wrong war, and a diversion, Senator Kerry this week seemed shocked to learn that Iraq is a dangerous place, full of dangerous weapons..."

"If Senator Kerry had his way... Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would control all of those weapons and explosives and could share them with his terrorist friends. Now the senator is making wild charges about missing explosives, when his top foreign policy adviser admits, quote, 'We do not know the facts.' Think about that: The senator is denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts..."

"Our military is now investigating a number of possible scenarios, including that the explosives may have been moved before our troops even arrived at the site. This investigation is important and it's ongoing. And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief."

[Yonivore]

"...am I the only one that sees the inconsistency in this position?"
Nope.

[Useruser666]

Of course you do, because if you admited that W and his Bushiveks royally fucked up in Iraq that would create such cognitive dissonance that would force you to back-track and re-investigate every questionable claim this administration has every made, and your not gonna do that because your in denial.

I hope that was not directed at me. As I have said before, we don't know the facts. It is therefore, premature of anyone to make such accusations at this time. If it comes out BUsh lied about something, then let's fault him. I don't know how you can say he lied, since he never even made a comment about the explosives in the first place. I can't be sure how you can fault him either. Did Bush directly order the troops to leave the stuff lying out in the open? If you can find that then you have something. But you're just not going to find that at this time.

I highly doubt that stuff was there or had been there for years. Something like that would probably already have been moved or distributed long before the US moved in. It would make no sense that is was just left there. In a country full of AK47s and RPG, how hard do you think it is to get a few pounds of HE? They probably have that in every bizaar in the country. I want a little something before I go flying off the handle. It's too bad Saddam isn't running for president. He'd probably do better than Nader.

[boutons]

Rather than shrub addressing the issue of the 380 tons of explosive HE lost, he spins an attack on Kerry.

shrub and his accomplices say "we don't know, we need facts". GMAFB

The facts that are known:

1. the inspectors saw the shit there in Jan 03, or at latest, in Dec 02. It was perhaps still there in Mar 03.

2. the shit wasn't there in April 03.

3. shrub and his army were going to war well before Dec 02.

Then, how the fuck could they take their fucking high-tech surveillance eyes off 380 tons of high explosives that had been known about for 10 years??

How come US commandos weren't watching that depot with their low-tech eyeballs?

How could the logistics of moving 380 tons of explosives NOT be detected by The World's Mightiest, High-Techy-est Miliatary, in full battle dress, just couple hours' drive away?

[Useruser666]

Rather than shrub addressing the issue of the 380 tons of explosive HE lost, he spins an attack on Kerry.

shrub and his accomplices say "we don't know, we need facts". GMAFB

The facts that are known:

1. the inspectors saw the shit there in Jan 03, or at latest, in Dec 02. It was perhaps still there in Mar 03.

2. the shit wasn't there in April 03.

3. shrub and his army were going to war well before Dec 02.

Then, how the fuck could they take their fucking high-tech surveillance eyes off 380 tons of high explosives that had been known about for 10 years??

How come US commandos weren't watching that depot with their low-tech eyeballs?

How could the logistics of moving 380 tons of explosives NOT be detected by The World's Mightiest, High-Techy-est Miliatary, in full battle dress, just couple hours' drive away?


Exactly! Because it was already gone! We don't know that it was there. We don't know that the inspectors that were there know their ass from a hole in the ground. People keep jumping the gun on this issue. It's easier to say, "I'm sorry." than ask for permission.

[Marcus Bryant]

Um, Kerry attacked Bush about it so I see no problem with Bush responding to that.


The facts that are known:

1. the inspectors saw the shit there in Jan 03, or at latest, in Dec 02. It was perhaps still there in Mar 03.

"perhaps"?

Some "facts" you listed.

[boutons]

"By giving it to those who could"

glib, avoiding the key issue: who's that?

If Saddam couldn't at the height of his power in 91, then who else could since?

Who else has the technology and logistics to weaponize 380 tons of explosives and take it to American soil?

[Marcus Bryant]

Oh I don't know, how about some fucking terrorists?

[Useruser666]

Who has the power to turn a form of commercial transportation into a precision guided weapon able to kill thousands of people in a single attack?

[boutons]

"Hey Bozo, the explosives were GONE."

Well, yes, quit repeating what nobody disputes.

The issue is, how they left under the nose of shrub's military that had commandos, we can safely assume, all over Iraq many weeks before the Iraq invasion?

Why can't shrub, his pack of spinners, or anybody here answer that question?

[Useruser666]

Wouldn't you ask the military that question?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Somebody's going to take the fall for this. I smell an early retirement for some General.
http://www.kerrysucks.com/albums/Funny_kerry_pics1/kerry_ketchup_lies.jpg

[boutons]

shrub IS the MILITARY commander-in-chief.

[Hook Dem]

It'll be good when Halloween is over Johnny so you can pull down your ridiculous sig sign. Also will be good when the election is over so you can go back to doing whatever you were doing beforehand. :rolleyes

[Useruser666]

It'll be good when Halloween is over Johnny so you can pull down your ridiculous sig sign. Also will be good when the election is over so you can go back to doing whatever you were doing beforehand. :rolleyes

So show me where he ordered the stuff to be left alone? Show me the proof it was there? Show me something!

[Nbadan]

LITITZ, United States (AFP) - Breaking his silence on missing Iraqi explosives, US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) called Democratic rival John Kerry (news - web sites)'s attacks on the subject "wild charges" levelled in desperation.

At a campaign rally in this crucial state just six days before the election, Bush said US forces were investigating the fate of the 350 tonnes of high explosives and that Kerry was irresponsibly jumping to conclusions.

"The senator is making wild charges about missing explosives," said Bush. "Think about that: The senator is denigrating the action of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts."

Yahoo News (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&ncid=703&e=7&u=/afp/20041027/pl_afp/us_vote_iraq_explosives)

I agree with Josh Marshall's take on this non-statement: (www.talkingpointsmemo.com) What I jotted down just as I was listening was a line about Kerry's "wild charges about missing explosives" and how Kerry's "denigrating the actions of our troops in the field without knowing the facts."

Beside that it seemed to be a mix of 'Not my fault', 'We still don't know what happened', 'Maybe they were already gone, 'Criticizing me means criticizing the troops' and then on top of that some more mumbo-jumbo about Tora Bora.

I almost expected him to start whining about media bias.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

It'll be good when Halloween is over Johnny so you can pull down your ridiculous sig sign. Also will be good when the election is over so you can go back to doing whatever you were doing beforehand. :rolleyes

The election will not stop my posting and just for you I'll find a nice Thanksgiving them sig for you to enjoy!

[Nbadan]

Speaking of signs...

http://www.bartcopnation.com/dc/user_files/10201.jpg

[Hook Dem]

Nice!

[Hook Dem]

The election will not stop my posting and just for you I'll find a nice Thanksgiving them sig for you to enjoy!
Oh...please do Johnny. Your ignorance is showing! :lol

[Marcus Bryant]

So the Kerry campaign and every other nutjob is finally admitting that Hussein had to be taken out. About fucking time.

[Yonivore]

Urgent Warning on Iraqi Cache Issued in 1995 (http://www.nysun.com/article/3826)
Somebody refresh my memory...who was the President of the United States in 1995?