Explosives stolen in Iraq

[vidcc]

I've read about this soldiers statement on fox and he seems to not be sure exactly what they removed... even fox is picking holes in the pentagon version of events and pointing out the video and inconsistances in the "official" stance foxnews

Explosives were included in the load taken by the team but Major Austin Pearson said he was unable to say what percentage it accounted for. The Pentagon believes the disclosure helps to explain what happened to 377 tons of explosives that the International Atomic Energy Agency (search) said disappeared after Saddam Hussein's regime fell.

A Pentagon spokesman acknowledged they don't have all the answers and can't yet account for all of the missing material but he said it was a signficant development in unraveling the mystery.

"We've described what we know and as we know more we'll decribe that," said spokesman Larry Dirita.

Pearson, accompanied by Dirita, appeared at a Pentagon news conference to say it was his mission to go the facility and clear material from the base but he could not say what percentage of the material were explosives. He said he was not an explosives expert but instead said his main mission is to clear possibly dangerous material from bases to make them safe for U.S. forces.

The officer's story comes as new videotape has surfaced that supports the contention that tons of the explosives were still at the base following Saddam's fall on April 9, 2003. U.S. officials had said they suspected the explosives were taken before U.S.-led forces took Baghdad.

Videotape shot by a Minnesota television crew traveling with U.S. troops in Iraq when they first opened the bunkers at the Al-Qaqaa (search) munitions base nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein shows what appeared to be high explosives still in barrels and bearing the markings of the International Atomic Energy Agency

At the core of the issue is whether the explosives were moved before or after U.S. forces reached that part of the country in early April. No one has been able to provide conclusive evidence either way, although Iraqi officials blamed the munitions' disappearance on poor U.S. security after Baghdad fell.

can't get much more republican than foxnews so i am not quoting from a liberal source

[ruthie]

LOL. I was just at their site, reading the article.
If true, why is it that nobody seemed to know they removed anything...until this afternoon, that is. Should I really believe the Pentagon didn't know about this "removal", if I even believe any of this?

WASHINGTON — A U.S. Army officer came forward Friday to say a team from his 3rd Infantry Division took about 250 tons of munitions and other material from the Al-Qaqaa (search) arms-storage facility soon after Saddam Hussein's regime fell in April 2003.

Explosives were part of the load taken by the team, but Major Austin Pearson was unable to say what percentage they accounted for.

The Pentagon believes the disclosure helps explain what happened to 377 tons of high explosives that the International Atomic Energy Agency (search) said disappeared after the U.S.-led invasion..

[BigBank_Hank]

Two things to touch on here:

One – When the officer heard the news that large stockpiles of explosives were missing he immediately thought that it was something new. Which is exactly what the Times and wanted us to believe that this was something that had recently happened when it actually occurred over a year ago.

Two – The office also never knew of the sites name until he heard it on the news. He said that he’d never heard of Al-Qaqaa.

[vidcc]

ok Hank but what about his story....which is vauge to say the least.... is it giving you your "victory" ? All it's done is raise more questions than answers.

So it's obvious that the story isn't a "fraud"...it is very open to speculation, but not fake..... The only people that seem to "know" what happened "exactly" are you and Manny.

You know what i would do if i was Bush ? i would stand on that podium and say " We don't know the full story yet but as commander in chief i will accept responsibility for whatever the outcome".

That would not only show great leadership but would take all the wind out of kerry's sails.

Instead as usual the buck is looking for a target to be passed onto.

Which is exactly what the Times and wanted us to believe that this was something that had recently happened when it actually occurred over a year ago.

The story gives dates, it doesn't say it happened "last week"...

But as it happened so long ago how come the pentagon still doesn't know what happened for sure?

[scroff]

The argument has gone back and forth about the timing of the disappearance of these explosives... if they disappeared in the few weeks between the time the UN pulled the inspectors out and Baghdad fell, or if they disappeared after Iraq was in US hands. As if that makes any difference in the big picture.





I do think it's interesting to note that one day after the Second Brigade of the Army's 101st Airborne Division passed through Al Qaqaa, Rumsfeld said the looting was a natural part of freedom...

"The task we've got ahead of us now is an awkward one ... It's untidy. And freedom's untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that's what's going to happen here," Rumsfeld said. "And for suddenly the biggest problem in the world to be looting is really notable."

I assert that if Bush hadn't decided to invade Iraq without allowing the inspectors to complete their mission, and according to the Iraq Resolution, we wouldn't have this problem now. But the inspectors were getting closer to exposing the lack of WMD and Bush couldn't let that happen.


On January 27, 2003 ElBaradei said,

Over these first two months of inspection, we have made good progress in our knowledge of Iraq’s nuclear capabilities, with a total of 139 inspections at some 106 locations to date.

One of his concerns in this report was the IAEA's ability to locate and catalog the high explosive “HMX”, but since the inspection teams were pulled out prior to completing their mission, I guess we'll never know.



This, IMNSHO, is the important point in all of this, not whether or not they were moved before or after the invasion, but that Bush, in his frenzied approach to the invasion of Iraq, had no idea what he was going to do once he got there, and no concern for the peaceful progress the inspectors were making. Don't forget that he expected us to be greeted with flowers... he expected the Iraqis to be cooperative and willing to work with the invading forces, he didn't see any need to secure anything because the Iraqis were going to be so grateful to be out from under Hussein they'd kiss the "coalition" butt.

"A political candidate who jumps to conclusion without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief..."


Did Bush really say that?

[Biggles]

If the items have been moved there would have been no need to break the UN seals. Consequently, it should be a simple matter to produce the items for the IAEA. Matter resolved.