3ID Captain: We Removed the Al Qaqaa Explosives

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Damn Kerry, you just can't catch a break...


FLASH 10.29.01 11:36:56 ET /// Soldier to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al Qaqaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons... Developing...

So what's Kerry going to do? Accuse a U.S. soldier of lying?

[CosmicCowboy]

So what's Kerry going to do? Accuse a U.S. soldier of lying?

He has already accused US soldiers of raping and pillaging like Genghis Khan and being war criminals...why not call them liers too?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Damn, good point...

Carry on.

[CommanderMcBragg]

Grow up some.

[Marcus Bryant]

If true, then John Kerry and his supporters in the media just spent the week before the election making the case that the Hussein regime had serious weapons which constituted a grave threat to the United States and weapons which were eliminated as a result of the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of the Hussein regime.

[Marcus Bryant]

Why didn't Kerry just say "Halliburton" 500 times this week? That would have been better than making the case for your incumbent opponent's most controversial decision of his presidency in the last week of the campaign.

[bigzak25]

Checkmate.

[CosmicCowboy]

http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Studio/8432/weckite.jpg

:lmao

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Grow up some.

You should heed your own advice, as much slinging and cracks at Bush as you make.

I know you've got your panties in a bunch because your boy Kerry will be officially owned after this press conference.

[CommanderMcBragg]

LOL Why don't you take a tip from Bush and don't jump to conclusions before we have all the facts?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

What does "grow up some" have to do with fact analysis. How do you apply facts to a personal attack?

[Marcus Bryant]

Slight problem: you wouldn't have the "facts" about Hussein's regime with total accuracy without overthrowing the Hussein regime.

As the Kerry campaign and The New York Times have reminded us this week, Hussein had serious weapons which posed a "grave threat" to the United States and had to be removed by necessary force.

[CommanderMcBragg]

If this is true this is very alarming. If this is false this is still very alarming.

If it is true:

Bush admin lied about the weapons being gone before hand. OR they had no idea what was going on. Either way it comes down to the incompetence issue.

If it is false:

Well it shows the desperation of the Repubs. They are in damage control mode.

[CosmicCowboy]

If it is true:

Bush admin lied about the weapons being gone before hand. OR they had no idea what was going on. Either way it comes down to the incompetence issue.

If it is false:

Well it shows the desperation of the Repubs. They are in damage control mode.

I have employees that go out every day on jobs.

Sometimes customers call with specific questions about their job that I don't know the answer to. I tell them I will have to talk to the guys that were there and get back to them.

I don't consider myself to be imcompetent just because I don't know every single thing that every single employee did on any given day...especially if it was over a year ago...

I consider the fact that they took a few days to get all the facts straight before responding to be a good thing. It is hardly a reflection of incompetence.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Bush admin lied about the weapons being gone before hand. OR they had no idea what was going on. Either way it comes down to the incompetence issue.

So who was incompetent? Our troops? Have you ever had a job? If so, who do you think is responsible when say, a customer leaves pissed off at the low man on the totem pole they probably dealt with?

Bush is managing a war and you guys want to hold him accountable for some troops missing some explosives in a compound with a thousand buildings.

Like my dad (Vietnam vet) says: "it's war, shit happens."

[CommanderMcBragg]

Yes, I've had a job and took responsibility when my men screwed up.

As Commander-in-Chief he needs to be ready to take responsibility for the good and the bad. He wants to take credit for "making America safer" but doesn't want to when things go bad?
That is not a quality I want in my president.

And I'm a veteran too.

[CommanderMcBragg]

Well from what I saw the soldier came to the podium alongside Rumsfeld's political aide. (Isn't the Pentagon supposed to be politics-neutral? ) Yes, the soldier said they removed tons of materials & equipment from the site on April 13.
But everything they removed had been in open facilities -- none of it under IAEA seals - which were still in place on April 18, per videotape . Pressed by reporters, both the aide and the soldier agreed they could not say that the materials destroyed were the IAEA-protected explosives that are missing.

About time the Pentagon reporters grew some balls.

[CosmicCowboy]

more details

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137017,00.html

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

He wants to take credit for "making America safer" but doesn't want to when things go bad?
That is not a quality I want in my president.

So I get it, he's Republican, so everything that happens under his watch is his fault. The tech bubble burst under CLinton, but I bet you still think he's a great candidate.

If you're a vet, you know that our government is one big old bureaucracy. I've been around much smaller bureaucracies (like universities) where the head man didn't know what the lowly janitor was up to, doesn't mean you should can your president.

[CommanderMcBragg]

Now you are spinning everything.
I've heard many a conservative republican blame Clinton for 9/11.
It goes both ways or have you forgotten the bashing Clinton took during his terms as president?
It comes with the office.

[spurster]

Dud.

[boutons]

I appreciate the Pentagon's effort today, but they don't, yet, know what/where/if those 360 tons of explosives (not munitions) were/are.

Which, these explosives having been one of the only findings by the WMD/nuclear inspectors as useful as nuclear detonators for Saddam (and anybody else), makes me wonder why this site didn't have a big reg flag stuck in it to be watched hyper-closely in the weeks, months when the military was told to prepare for the war, and before that? These explosives were located and identified in 1991.

As Rummy said, US owned the skies, and thereby the roads, after the invasion such that the logistical activity of moving 360 tons would have been detected, but didn't the US already own the skies and roads months before the invasion?

I think the distinction must be maintained that weapons-making, high-explosive material is a totally different risk than than same explosive weaponized into munitions. ie, munitions are much harder for terrroists to hide and transport larger volume of artillery shells, mines, grenades, bullets to a target than it is to conceal smaller volume of raw, non-metallic (lighter, formable, non-detectable) explosive.

I accept the point that the 360 tons of missing explosives are under 1% _in tons_ of what the miliatary has found and deestroyed, but that is a distortion since it undestates/ignores the vast superiority and punching power of pure explosive for terrorists purposes. It also includes tons of "just weapons" (unloaded, harmless RPG launchers, rifles, machine guns, even tanks and artillery, etc) as well live ammuntion, which itself contains a tiny %age by weight of explosive payload.

Has the US military actually seized and destroyed these explosives but, due to bad record keeping, can't definitely say so? I would be happy safet of our troops, etc if that was the case, but unhappy that the inventorying was so primitive as to be useless.

So Kerry's hammering of shrub and the CIA for conducting the war without competence is still valid. The single stash of WMD-able materiel, WMD being the main reason shrub started this bogus war, was not even monitored and secured before the war, after warnings by the weapons inspectors. For me, this gives lie to the whole WMD "reason" as a bogus pretext for a war that shrub was going to start NO MATTER WHAT.

[Hook Dem]

I appreciate the Pentagon's effort today, but they don't, yet, know what/where/if those 360 tons of explosives (not munitions) were/are.

Which, these explosives having been one of the only findings by the WMD/nuclear inspectors as useful as nuclear detonators for Saddam (and anybody else), makes me wonder why this site didn't have a big reg flag stuck in it to be watched hyper-closely in the weeks, months when the military was told to prepare for the war, and before that? These explosives were located and identified in 1991.

As Rummy said, US owned the skies, and thereby the roads, after the invasion such that the logistical activity of moving 360 tons would have been detected, but didn't the US already own the skies and roads months before the invasion?

I think the distinction must be maintained that weapons-making, high-explosive material is a totally different risk than than same explosive weaponized into munitions. ie, munitions are much harder for terrroists to hide and transport larger volume of artillery shells, mines, grenades, bullets to a target than it is to conceal smaller volume of raw, non-metallic (lighter, formable, non-detectable) explosive.

I accept the point that the 360 tons of missing explosives are under 1% _in tons_ of what the miliatary has found and deestroyed, but that is a distortion since it undestates/ignores the vast superiority and punching power of pure explosive for terrorists purposes. It also includes tons of "just weapons" (unloaded, harmless RPG launchers, rifles, machine guns, even tanks and artillery, etc) as well live ammuntion, which itself contains a tiny %age by weight of explosive payload.

Has the US military actually seized and destroyed these explosives but, due to bad record keeping, can't definitely say so? I would be happy safet of our troops, etc if that was the case, but unhappy that the inventorying was so primitive as to be useless.

So Kerry's hammering of shrub and the CIA for conducting the war without competence is still valid. The single stash of WMD-able materiel, WMD being the main reason shrub started this bogus war, was not even monitored and secured before the war, after warnings by the weapons inspectors. For me, this gives lie to the whole WMD "reason" as a bogus pretext for a war that shrub was going to start NO MATTER WHAT.
When I saw who posted last, I couldn't wait to see what you had to say about "shrub" this time. :rolleyes

[Nbadan]

Nice points Bouton. I saw the interview and came away with yes, the 3rdID destroyed some of the stockpiled weapons at Al qa Qaa, but they could not say that they destroyed the HMX and BMX explosives for certain. Fact is, we know there were other munitions stored at the Al Qa-qaa site, and that could have been what the 3RD ID destroyed. None-the-less, the commander could not say for certain that the explosives were among the munitions destroyed and they did not break any IAEI seals to get to the munitions that they destroyed.

All in all, this smells like yet another 'version' of the truth from Bush apologists.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Version? Fuck, it's reality. Or are you calling our troops liars now? Guess it fits the party huh?

[CosmicCowboy]

http://www.hnd.usace.army.mil/pao/CEAInfo/Explosion%20Photo.JPG

and to make matters even worse those sorry bastard Bush apologists were guilty of destroying the evidence!...for shame!!!!

[Nbadan]

Version? Fuck, it's reality. Or are you calling our troops liars now? Guess it fits the party huh?

I'm not calling the troops anything. I will leave that up to W supporters to do since they are the first to jump to name calling when they are out of real facts to support their thesis.

The truth is, everytime a real fact comes up and destroys the administrations version of what happened at Al Qa Qaa, they come up with a new version of the 'truth' to muddy up the waters a little.

[Hook Dem]

I'm not calling the troops anything. I will leave that up to W supporters to do since they are the first to jump to name calling when they are out of real facts to support their thesis.

The truth is, everytime a real fact comes up and destroys the administrations version of what happened at Al Qa Qaa, they come up with a new version of the 'truth' to muddy up the waters a little.
It must suck for you to be wrong all the time Dan!

[Nbadan]

I have rarely been wrong. Thank you for your concern though.

Here is what Joshua Marshall of Talking Points Memo (http://talkingpointsmemo.com) who has been on top of this controversy has to say about the latest administration spin...


At a few minutes after noon, I'm watching Mr. Di Rita giving yet another round of spin about al Qaqaa. Uncharacteristically, he looked like he was on the verge of a panic attack through most of his introductory remarks. And with what followed, it's not hard to see why. The line Di Rita led off with (and I just jotted this down from hearing it once over the air, so perhaps I've got a word or two wrong) was this: "It has not been our desire to tell a particular story, only to tell the facts."

Please.

I believe this man protests too much.

The only thing accurate about this claim is that it's true that Di Rita has not been intent on telling a particular story. He's been willing to tell any story -- and has -- so long as it's a story that exonerates the White House. Even if it's a different story every day.

It's a touchy point. But it's time for someone to start making the point that the Pentagon Public Affairs office isn't supposed to be used as a formal arm of the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign. And for that matter if Di Rita's going to use it that way, he should at least be doing a better job of it.

Today Di Rita brought out an Army major who says his unit removed and destroyed roughly 250 tons of equipment, ammunition and explosives from somewhere in the al Qaqaa facility in early April 2003 -- that would be after the first US troops arrived but prior to the arrival of the news crew that apparently filmed much of the explosives on April 18th.

Was it the stuff in question? Di Rita kept trying to answer the questions on the major's behalf. But the major made clear that he had no idea. Did he see any IAEA seals? No, he said, he didn't.

The Fox reporter at the news conference tried to coax the major into saying more than he was saying. But to no avail. He would only say what he knew. And there was very little that he knew that pertained to the relevant question.

The other reporters on hand, apparently weary of being lied to all week, preferred to put their questions to the major directly, rather than to Di Rita. And he, the major, was straightforward enough to say that all he knew was that he had taken stuff from somewhere at al Qaqaa and destroyed.

What does that mean? Almost nothing.

This was an unfortunate stunt, put on by Di Rita and the politicals at DOD Public Affairs. And given how it turned out, I suspect it's one they quickly regretted.

-- Josh Marshall

[Hook Dem]

"I have rarely been wrong." .......................... :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol Thats gotta be the joke of the century!

[Nbadan]

"I have rarely been wrong."

Then prove me wrong and quit making stupid comments like this.

[Marcus Bryant]

So there were indeed stockpiles of dangerous weapons in Iraq which constituted a "grave threat" to the US and the US military has destroyed most of them, save for a rounding error which even the IAEA cannot definitively ascertain were there at the time of the invasion.

I didn't realize that danny boy was for the invasion. Go figure.

[Hook Dem]

Quote:



"I have rarely been wrong."
You're the one who made the stupid comment!

[Nbadan]

So there were indeed stockpiles of dangerous weapons in Iraq and the US has destroyed most of them, save for a rounding error which even the IAEA cannot definitively ascertain were there at the time of the invasion.

Nice spin, but these were not munitions that Saddam had not declared. Big difference. If Saddam had been hiding the weapons from the IAEA, or U.N. weapons inspectors you might have a point, but we know that wasn't the case dont we?

[boutons]

"destroying the evidence" is not even close to the topic.

The CIA/military inability to state definitively what is the disposition of the exlosives is the key issue. If they destroyed it, say so (they didn't).

If somebody (saddam, russians, whoever) moved it, say so.

If somebody moved 360 tons of explosives, why didn't the military, with all its expensive gadgets trained on Iraq, know it was being moved? The military bombed A-A sites just for turning on their radars, why can't/didn't the miliatary MOAB, or whatever, Al QaQaa at the first sign of displacement?

All they said today is more of "we know this and this, but we don't know that". Fine, thanks for at least that.

But, for this particularly important and known-for-a-decade stash, why don't they know?

shrub's "I'm waiting for the facts" isn't valid, just as his lie "we need more study" on global warming. Why TF didn't shrub already have the facts about thees WMD-able explosives in Dec02/Apr 03? I say because he didn't give a flying fuck about WMD, he was going to war no matter what. WMD, and his 30 others bogus justifications, were just a con job.

[Marcus Bryant]

Nice spin, but these were not munitions that Saddam had not declared.
Big difference.


Doesn't fucking matter. He had them prior to the invasion. According to some of the shit you've posted that is a fact.



If Saddam had been hiding the weapons from the IAEA, or U.N. weapons inspectors you might have a point, but we know that wasn't the case dont we?

Oh I have a point and you have no response. He had those stockpiles of weapons. The monitoring doesn't mean a fucking thing. The IAEA doesn't know what he had at the time of the invasion and they have admitted that there were other access points to those buildings which were not covered by any of their "seals."

What was the deterrent that the IAEA and the UN had to prevent him from disregarding them?

Try again.

[Marcus Bryant]

Lest we forget that Hussein was not supposed to have had that arsenal of explosives in the first place.

[Nbadan]

Oh I have a point and you have no response. He had those stockpiles of weapons. The monitoring doesn't mean a fucking thing. The IAEA doesn't know what he had at the time of the invasion and they have admitted that there were other access points to those building which were not covered by any of their "seals."

What was the deterrent that the IAEA and the UN had to prevent him from disregarding them?

Try again

What the fuck are you smoking? Have you seen the video of those bunkers? If any other entrance to those bunkers had been attempted it would have been more than obvious. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

We do know from the IAEA report that there were hundreds of tons of deadly HMX explosives at the site when the U.S. expelled IAEA inspectors in March prior to the invasion.

[Nbadan]

Lest we forget that Hussein was not supposed to have had that arsenal of explosives in the first place

No true. These explosives had been declared by Saddam as for civilian use and judging from their non-use in GW2, I would say Saddam lived up to his pledge.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Nice spin, but these were not munitions that Saddam had not declared.

Of course, it's a non-issue for you that these munitions were banned under conditions of the original ceasefire in '92, part of the conditions of which stipulated if Saddam didn't comply we could recommence Operation Ass Kicking.

[Marcus Bryant]

What the fuck are you smoking? Have you seen the video of those bunkers? If any other entrance to those bunkers had been attempted it would have been more than obvious.

The video doesn't show it all you little psycho nutjob. There were large vents on the sides of the building through which those explosives could have been moved without breaking the seal. The IAEA said he had done that before.

Even if the seal was broken, then what? Was the IAEA going to send Saddam a nasty letter? Take away his allowance?


To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

You don't know the first thing about intellectual honesty.




We do know from the IAEA report that there were hundreds of tons of deadly HMX explosives at the site when the U.S. expelled IAEA inspectors in March prior to the invasion.

All the IAEA looked at was the seals on the buildings housing the HMX. They did not look inside. They also did not examine the facilities housing the RDX at all.

But, again, assuming you are correct for this brief second, you again confirm that Hussein had serious weapons which posed a grave threat to the United States.

Good work, junior.

[Marcus Bryant]

No true. These explosives had been declared by Saddam as for civilian use and judging from their non-use in GW2, I would say Saddam lived up to his pledge.

He was not supposed to have had them per a number of UN resolutions. The UN acquiesed when he came up with that bullshit story about the 'civilian use.'

Nice to see that you are now arguing for Saddam. For we know you'd rather sell out your country than admit anything good about a Republican president.

[Nbadan]

you little psycho nutjob. There were large vents on the sides of the building through which those explosives could have been moved without breaking the seal. The IAEA said he had done that before.

Even if the seal was broken, then what? Was the IAEA going to send Saddam a nasty letter.

...but they weren't, and there is no evidence that Saddam used these explosives.

[Nbadan]

Nice to see that you are now arguing for Saddam. For we know you'd rather sell out your country than admit anything good about a Republican president.

:rolleyes

Well, at least you've progressed beyond the name calling, now I'm just a Saddam supporter.

[Marcus Bryant]

...but they weren't, and there is no evidence that Saddam used these explosives.

The seals don't matter as he could have removed the explosives without breaking them.

Secondly, the IAEA, again, did not verifiy that the explosives were there in the first place in March.

Fuck, if he broke the seals what would have been the punishment?

Get some fucking perspective. My dog could make a better argument than you.

[Marcus Bryant]

Well, at least you've progressed beyond the name calling, now I'm just a Saddam supporter.

Um you just claimed that Saddam was living up to his obligations and about 15 UN resolutions say he wasn't. He wasn't supposed to have had those weapons in the first place, civilian use or not.

[Clandestino]

one thing too...officers don't do the real "work"...they are like managers... the major probably didn't even open the doors, so he himself did not see the seals...

also, the IAEA states the shafts of the bunkers were not sealed and things could be easily removed...

here is a link to the pdf report by the IAEA:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/alqaqaa_documents.pdf

also, i think it is highly unlikely the anyone could've secretly moved 370 tons of ANYTHING!!!

[Clandestino]

As Rummy said, US owned the skies, and thereby the roads, after the invasion such that the logistical activity of moving 360 tons would have been detected, but didn't the US already own the skies and roads months before the invasion?

Has the US military actually seized and destroyed these explosives but, due to bad record keeping, can't definitely say so? I would be happy safet of our troops, etc if that was the case, but unhappy that the inventorying was so primitive as to be useless.


Actually, before the war we didn't own that skies above Al-qaqaa.. Al Qa Qaa is located in Yousefiya 30-38 km South of Baghdad, near Iskandariya. It is not located in the areas of the no-fly zones..

also, the u.s. military comes across many weapons they destroy...they have destroyed over 600,000 tons of weapons...do you honestly beleive our soldiers have the time to be listing every single det cord, grenade, plastic explosive they destroy??? their job is to destroy it so that it can't be used against them.

[boutons]

"So there were indeed stockpiles of dangerous weapons in Iraq which constituted a "grave threat" to the US"

False. Iraq was no threat to anybody, even Iran, after 10+ years of sanctions, inspectors crawling around, no-fly zones, under nearby continuous US surveillance. The Iraq "problem" was solved long ago.

shrub has now de-stablized a stable, impotent Iraq, created a totally new problem entirely of his own making.

One would assume that the US military would have been watching 360 tons of high explosives like a hawk, but it looks like they were asleep at the wheel ....

[Marcus Bryant]

Ok, so if Hussein had no weapons which were a threat to the US then there's no issue here.

Also, you are assuming that the sanctions scheme was sustainable and that clearly was not the case. You clearly are unaware of that so I'm not going to waste anymore time on you.

[Clandestino]

"So there were indeed stockpiles of dangerous weapons in Iraq which constituted a "grave threat" to the US"

False. Iraq was no threat to anybody, even Iran, after 10+ years of sanctions, inspectors crawling around, no-fly zones, under nearby continuous US surveillance. The Iraq "problem" was solved long ago.

shrub has now de-stablized a stable, impotent Iraq, created a totally new problem entirely of his own making.

One would assume that the US military would have been watching 360 tons of high explosives like a hawk, but it looks like they were asleep at the wheel ....

you must be kerry's brother... now you're saying the u.s. military is inept... 360 tons of 600,000 tons already destroyed represents .0006%...

and if Iraq was no threat to anyone why did we have the N/S no-fly zones?

[spurster]

On the "grave threat" spin:

I can appreciate the argument that the US needed to invade Iraq because of Saddam and the amount and types of weapons he was known to have (meaning they were listed in the handy UN Guide to Iraqi Weaponry). I don't agree this was a "grave threat", but I would say it is certainly enough to maintain the previous Saddam-in-a-box policy.

I hope you can appreciate the point that the weapons known to the UN were not Bush's rationale for this war. I don't even recall them coming up even once by anybody, only when the missing explosives story came up. I hope you can forgive me of being skeptical of this week's rationale for the war.

Now Iraq did not have the stockpiles of WMDs and was not trying build the nuclear weapon (which would be grave threats to me), but Iraq did have powerful conventional weapons and explosives that the UN knew about and knew where they were. These do not constitute a grave threat to me, but it's very serious stuff (why else would it be in the UN Guide), so I would think it's not something you want to give away for free, first come, first served.

Yet that is what happened. Instead of keeping us safe, BushCo has given this stuff away to whoever can carry it off. If you actually think it constituted a grave threat, I would think that would be even more of a reason to vote against Bush. Not only did he drop the ball, but he handed to the other team, and stepped out of the way.

[Marcus Bryant]

You're right. Bush's rationale first and foremost for the war was that he had not fully accounted for his WMD programs as per the original Gulf War I armistice and all of the subsequent UN Security Council resolutions concerning that. Thus the primary reason we did not know with full accuracy what he had.


Now Iraq did not have the stockpiles of WMDs and was not trying build the nuclear weapon (which would be grave threats to me)

Since we are looking at this from 2 years after the fact then Hussein clearly had a plan to end the sanctions and restart his WMD program. Some of those WMD stockpiles could have been rebuilt in a couple of months. Same difference. The status quo was not sustainable.

[Nbadan]

You're right. Bush's rationale first and foremost for the war was that he had not fully accounted for his WMD programs as per the original Gulf War I armistice and all of the subsequent UN Security Council resolutions concerning that. Thus the primary reason we did not know with full accuracy what he had.

A argument has been made that the U.N. (with aid from the U.S.) set up too many barriers to prevent Saddam from every fully complying with all U.N. resolutions. Many have contended that in the closing days, Saddam tried everything in his power to convince as many people as possible that Iraq no longer possessed WMD's. Thus, Germany, France, and Russia refused to join the coalition.

[Marcus Bryant]

What barriers? All he needed to do was disclose the state of his programs, which he didn't. He did just about everything to convince the world that he had WMDs that he could, because he thought with that perception he had power.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

A argument has been made that the U.N. (with aid from the U.S.) set up too many barriers to prevent Saddam from every fully complying with all U.N. resolutions.


What barriers? He had already bought off China, Germany, Russia, and France.


Thus, Germany, France, and Russia refused to join the coalition.

We already have been given a couple billion reasons why those three countries refused to join the coalition. As much as you like to scream about corruption in the Bush Administration, you sure are brushing off the UN's corruption as no big deal.