Explosives stolen in Iraq [Archive]

spinningfreemanny

10-26-2004, 03:04 AM

Hey how about some more 'real news'?

VIENNA, Austria - Several hundred tons of conventional explosives were looted from a former Iraqi military facility that once played a key role in Saddam Hussein’s efforts to build a nuclear bomb, the U.N. nuclear agency told the Security Council on Monday.

A “lack of security” resulted in the loss of 377 tons of high explosives from the sprawling Al-Qaqaa military installation about 30 miles south of Baghdad, said Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA.

The IAEA fears “that these explosives could have fallen into the wrong hands,” said Melissa Fleming, a spokeswoman for the agency.

Whereabouts a mystery
ElBaradei told the council the IAEA had been trying 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 in the media, he said he wanted the Security Council to have the letter dated, Oct. 10, 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.

The letter informed the IAEA that since Sept. 4, 2003, looting at the Al-Qaqaa installation south of Baghdad had resulted in the loss of 214.67 tons of HMX, 155.68 tons of RDX and 6.39 tons of PETN explosives.

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.

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.

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.

Bush, Kerry quarrel over report
The disappearance of the explosives quickly became an issue in the presidential race, with the Democratic candidate, Sen. John Kerry, accusing President Bush of committing “one of the greatest blunders” of his administration in failing to secure the materials.

“George W. Bush, who talks tough ... and brags about making America safer, has once again failed to deliver,” Kerry 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.”

“This is one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the greatest blunders of this administration, and the incredible incompetence of this president and this administration has put our troops at risk and this country at greater risk.”

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the administration’s first concern was whether the material was a nuclear proliferation threat and had determined that it was not.

“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.”

The probe will include finding out what happened to the weapons and whether they are being used against U.S. forces, he said.

Warning from the Iraqi government
Bush’s national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was informed of the missing explosives in the past month, the report said.

Fleming, the IAEA spokeswoman, said the agency learned of the disappearance on Oct. 10.

“We first took measures to authenticate it,” Fleming said. “Then, on October 15, we informed the multinational forces through the U.S. government with the request for it to take any appropriate action in cooperation with Iraq’s interim government.”

Before the war, inspectors with the Vienna-based IAEA had kept tabs on the so-called “dual use” explosives because they could have been used to detonate a nuclear weapon.

IAEA inspectors pulled out of Iraq just before the 2003 invasion and have not yet been able to return despite ElBaradei’s repeated urging that the experts be let back in to finish their work.

ElBaradei told the Security Council before the war that Iraq’s nuclear program was in disarray and that there was no evidence to suggest it had revived efforts to build atomic weaponry.

Plastic explosives' components
Al Qaqaa, a sprawling former military installation about 30 miles south of Baghdad, was placed under U.S. military control but repeatedly has been looted, raising troubling questions about whether the missing explosives have fallen into the hands of insurgents battling coalition forces.

Saddam was known to have used the site to make conventional warheads, and IAEA inspectors dismantled parts of his nuclear program there before the 1991 Gulf War. The experts also oversaw the destruction of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons.

Discuss...Is this a failure of the Bush administration ?

ruthie

10-26-2004, 04:54 AM

"Is this a failure of the Bush administration ?"

yup. Bet they've been missing longer then they're copping to.

rf9rider

10-26-2004, 05:28 AM

"Is this a failure of the Bush administration ?"

yup. Bet they've been missing longer then they're copping to.

Ruthie blaming Bush? I dont believe it.........yes, i am being sarcastic.

ruthie

10-26-2004, 05:30 AM

rofl

Mathea

10-26-2004, 05:35 AM

Hey how about some more 'real news'?

im just stuck on that.....

personally i would just like to see someone post something that backs Bush up... through facts. I mean, we have Bush supporters on the board and all, so they must have reasons for voting for him etc.

Im not being sarcastic either, nor am i trying to prove anything. I guess its more likea request, that someone on here that supports him and is glad he is President find some good stuff he has done etc.

Busyman tried a thread to get this started and it didn't go anywhere.... so maybe this time around? :unsure:

ruthie

10-26-2004, 05:38 AM

I am curious as well.

Mathea

10-26-2004, 06:02 AM

I dont know much about it, but it seems that in my searching the one thing has come up lots (and without sarcasm) is the child tax credit. I dont know much except that it saved ppl wit hkids about $400 per child (according to what ive found so far). Im curious why this wasnt mentioned before in Busyman's thread....

ruthie

10-26-2004, 06:07 AM

it was good. On top of that, though, we have the biggest deficit ever. It seems like he threw crumbs to everyday people, and gave billions to corporations.

Mathea

10-26-2004, 06:09 AM

yeah i saw that as a response to the people that pointed the child tax credit as something good

it's just that I want to see the other side, and since no one seems willing to take that on Im doing some research on it myself.... but it would be nice if someone that actually WANTS bush as president for another four years could say why, or what he did, other than the fact that he is a republican....

ruthie

10-26-2004, 06:10 AM

I know, and agree. For anyone claiming there is not a balanced view given...present it.

Mathea

10-26-2004, 06:13 AM

the flip side of the coin being that they see things differently. While I personally see the Patriot Act as a total invasion of privacy, I suppose that some people think it is a good, reasonable, and necessary move. (for example)

EDIT: but I would also like to see if they say WHY they support the things he has done.... maybe so I can see where they are coming from

ruthie

10-26-2004, 06:14 AM

Ruthie blaming Bush? I dont believe it.........yes, i am being sarcastic.

"If the administration had had its way, the public would never have heard anything about this. Administration officials have known about the looting of Al Qaqaa for at least six months, and probably much longer. But they didn't let the I.A.E.A. inspect the site after the war, and pressured the Iraqis not to inform the agency about the loss. They now say that they didn't want our enemies - that is, the people who stole the stuff - to know it was missing. The real reason, obviously, was that they wanted the news kept under wraps until after Nov. 2."
NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/opinion/26krugman.html?hp)

Busyman

10-26-2004, 10:08 AM

If the President thought there WMDs in Iraq, what plan did he have to secure them?

You would think there would have been the intelligence :lol: to indicate where the main weapon depots were and to....you know...kinda like focus on those areas and everything and even. :huh:

vidcc

10-26-2004, 01:44 PM

Manny this may come as no supprise to you but i have to say yes the buck stops with Bush on this and he has himself to blame.
And here's why.

He has gone about in this election claiming credit for all the "good" things that happened in Afganistan and Iraq...even down to the football team in the olympics. He stood on the carrier with the "mission accomplished" banner and gave the "get a load of us" speech. He has been telling us he is our protector.

So if it's good enough to take credit for the good............

Added.... if he really thought Iraq had these wmd's why wasn't there a securing plan? If there wasn't enough troops to guard the munitions why did they not just blow them up?....it's called incompetence and even without the reason i gave above the buck ALWAYS stops at the top.

Edit:
I am impressed with the fact that you raised this subject Manny and the report seems reasonably balanced. Bush spent the whole day talking security and Iraq yesterday and he didn't mention this once, so it must be embarassing for him..... Are you starting to look at the "big picture" :lol:

Perhaps we could have your thoughts.

Busyman

10-26-2004, 01:52 PM

BigBank_Hank

10-26-2004, 04:16 PM

vidcc

10-26-2004, 04:38 PM

This is almost to good to be true.

You idiots are so eager to believe anything anti Bush that you never question the authenticity of anything.

THE WHOLE THING IS A FRAUD! AGAIN!

Kerry of course is running with the story and even after its been proven wrong he’s still going with it.

How low will the media sink to try an unseat Bush? This is the second “major story” in the last few months that’s been released to try and hurt Bush that’s been proven wrong.
what bit are you saying is fraud?...Are you basing it on the pentagon statement ?..the one that said that they didn't find explosives in may but also that the place was looted before they inspected it?

BigBank_Hank

10-26-2004, 04:44 PM

I should have included a link to my post. Here you go Story (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/10/26/90949.shtml)

ilw

10-26-2004, 05:07 PM

NBC television reported that one of its correspondents was embedded with the 101st Airborne Division which temporarily took control of the base on 10 April 2003 but did not find any of the explosives.

However, other US outlets, including NBC's own news website, quoted Pentagon officials who said a search of the site after the US-led invasion had revealed the explosives to be intact.
Calling people idiots when they believe statements from the pentagon and a multitude of respectable media sources is a bit harsh, clearly the validity of the story is up in the atm. Never know might turn out that you're the idiot :P

[quote[n the run-up to the war the IAEA warned the US about the presence of the explosives and urged its forces to secure the base, the New York Times said.

An internal IAEA memorandum warned last May that terrorists might be helping themselves "to the greatest explosives bonanza in history".[/quote]

spinningfreemanny

10-26-2004, 05:26 PM

I should have included a link to my post. Here you go Story (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/10/26/90949.shtml)

hee hee... Hank, you got to it first.... :lol:

added; To the people here that have been here while; we have rehashed and rehashed and have taken a multitude of persectives on the Bush Administration and its policies; people like Vid, Rat, and Busy have all been subjected to my logic :) ). That, coupled with the fact that I don't really have the time now (if you noticed, I have been posting considerably less) to go through it again, plus the fact that with the election being around the corner; I am abolutely sick of politics at this junction, plus, my absolute irritation with the big deletion that wiped out all of the valuable threads that Ruthie, mathea, scroff, and others are now clamoring for not only make me want to not post my positions again, but also makes me want to unplug my computer until after the election. :shifty:

due to time constraints thats all I have now; But I will try to keep track of some topics...

added...again, from Drudge...I will go now; promise ;)

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.

According to NBCNEWS, the explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived. [VIDEO CLIP]

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.

Rat Faced

10-26-2004, 05:51 PM

When are you going to start using Logic Manny? :blink:

That would be nice, try it some time ;)

vidcc

10-26-2004, 06:17 PM

Well let's put it this way...even fox is running the story.... i note that hanks source has a direct advert for the anti kerry movie in the middle of the story.

if this particular story should turn out as spin all well and good...we know both sides do it, however i shall be looking for more than one source as proof.
we know for a fact that sites aren't being secured, we know that there wasn't enough men on the ground to do the job with the speed needed...this story is just in that vein
btw manny what are your views on the anti kerry " wounds that never heal" program? fact or fiction?

BigBank_Hank

10-26-2004, 06:38 PM

Busyman

10-26-2004, 06:53 PM

Vid no matter if my source had an anti Kerry add or not NBC news originally broke the story.

What’s funny is that you all were quick to jump on the original report and slam Bush but now that Manny and I have shot this thing down it’s a wait and see deal. Pathetic.
Oh my gosh we actually commented on an article.

It could have been an article made up by manny and there would have been commentary. We aren't putting the damn thing on TV or anything so...

STFU since you have proven your idiocy on more than one occasion.
The only time you comment anyway is when it's something pro-Bush or, my bad, anti-Kerry, since I have yet to see many Bush accomplishments.

....,got some nerve calling people idiots and shit.

vidcc

10-26-2004, 06:56 PM

Vid no matter if my source had an anti Kerry add or not NBC news originally broke the story.

What’s funny is that you all were quick to jump on the original report and slam Bush but now that Manny and I have shot this thing down it’s a wait and see deal. Pathetic.
you haven't shot it down..... You seem to think you have... i first saw the story on Foxnews, ( you can't tell me they show anti bush stories) although the way they worded it was more as proof that Saddam was dangerous.

As to the comment on us jumping on it...who posted it? a well known Anti-Bush member? The story had been around a while yet nobody else raised it.

All we did was debate the story posted

we know for a fact that sites aren't being secured, we know that there wasn't enough men on the ground to do the job with the speed needed...this story is just in that vein

I don't care if this particular snippet is exagerated, Personally i don't care, the above stands. As does my comments on mannys original question...If Bush takes credit for anything "good" he has to take credit for anything "bad".
Bush hasn't taken the blame for one thing.... It's always someone elses fault. A true leader take responsiblility.
I dissagreed with going into iraq in the first place...but it's just one little thing that makes me say i want Bush removed. His domestic policies take up more of my reasoning than iraq does.

Rat Faced

10-26-2004, 06:57 PM

We comment on the info posted.

If thats from a reputable news source to begin with we start to form opinions.

If thats then argued against from another ruputable source, then we should question which is true, and say "Lets see what going on"...

I mean, surely thats your whole arguement for the war? Intelligence at the time being different from that now? Well, ours is just a couple of days apart, and your yelling...

I mean, make your mind up on the way you want to think???

So far, the UN and Whitehouse have basically agreed, and NBC says its wrong... so lets see who's right huh?

BigBank_Hank

10-26-2004, 07:02 PM

Rat Faced

10-26-2004, 07:08 PM

Actually, i'd already posted it in another thread, from a different source. ;)

The point stands though.... there are conflicting stories from reputable sources, therefore we need to stand back and see what comes out.

If the explosives were missing a day after the fall of Bagdad, then i certainly wont be throwing any blame around. If they've been warned since May last year, and stuff has gone missing, then i will...

....its that simple.

vidcc

10-26-2004, 07:18 PM

Once again it’s hard to point out hypocrisy to one of the biggest hypocrites on the board.

Manny posted the original article and you all foamed at the mouth to take the opportunity to once again hammer the Bush. But when I posted and said the whole thing was made up to make the Bush look bad look bad people questioned my source.

And furthermore you were so eager to jump on Bush you missed the whole intent when Manny posted this:
Actually hank...read up....how many posts on this thread actuall stuck to the story?...there's more about tax that the original story.
But of those that did comment on the story.
My comment was that the buck stop with Bush...he's in charge he has to accept that...so do you.

Ruthie pointed to the IAEA not being allowed to inspect "post invasion"

ILW pointed to what the pentagon said "then" and what they say "now"

Not seeing any "foaming"

BigBank_Hank

10-26-2004, 07:22 PM

Actually hank...read up....how many posts on this thread actuall stuck to the story?...there's more about tax that the original story.
But of those that did comment on the story.
My comment was that the buck stop with Bush...he's in charge he has to accept that...so do you.

Ruthie pointed to the IAEA not being allowed to inspect "post invasion"

ILW pointed to what the pentagon said "then" and what they say "now"

Not seeing any "foaming"

Look at the source Ruthie quoted: The New York Times. Want to take a guess who ran this as a front page story?

vidcc

10-26-2004, 07:27 PM

are you saying that the IAEA were allowed to inspect post invasion?

BigBank_Hank

10-26-2004, 07:40 PM

What I’m saying is Ruthie quoted The New York Times in that post and The New York Times are the one’s the “broke” the story.

Rat Faced

10-26-2004, 07:45 PM

Yeah...

And now others are refuting...

Whats your point?

Wasnt exactly Pravda or The Drudge :blink:

vidcc

10-26-2004, 07:51 PM

But even your beloved foxnews ran the story.

But even with your point about his quote being from the "breakers"...i still ask if you are saying that the IAEA were allowed to inspect post invasion?
Obviously they did pre invasion because the seals would be on them and they knew where they were....the question is at what point did they go missing and there is a discrepency between what the pentagon said "then" and "now"

There are certain solid facts (supposedly)

1. the munitions existed
2. they are unaccounted for (but so are many)

The dispute is in the time they disapeared

BigBank_Hank

10-26-2004, 07:51 PM

Rat Drudge didn’t pick up one the story until NBC reported it last night. Is that reputable enough for you?

Rat Faced

10-26-2004, 07:54 PM

I said that reputable sources were disputing it earlier.

Arent you reading the posts in this thread?

BigBank_Hank

10-26-2004, 07:59 PM

Vid NBC had an journalist embedded with the 101st Airborne and they made a pit stop in Baghdad before moving on and no one reported coming across a huge weapons cache.

lynx

10-26-2004, 08:05 PM

what bit are you saying is fraud?...Are you basing it on the pentagon statement ?..the one that said that they didn't find explosives in may but also that the place was looted before they inspected it?
I think he's probably basing it on this, you know what liars they are in the pentagon, so the opposite is obviously true. :dry:

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.

vidcc

10-26-2004, 08:06 PM

did they look everywhere then?

But if you look at that info could it be that they wern't securing places?

I made a pit stop in NY a while back...i didn't come across the statue of liberty

but again i say it doesn't matter if this story turns out to be spin...it's well known that unsecured sites are being looted

vidcc

10-26-2004, 08:08 PM

I think he's probably basing it on this, you know what liars they are in the pentagon, so the opposite is obviously true. :dry:
i was actally talking about the latest statement by the pentagon saying they didnt find explosives with IAEA seals

lynx

10-26-2004, 08:13 PM

i was actally talking about the latest statement by the pentagon saying they didnt find explosives with IAEA sealsAh, I must have missed that one.

Hang on a sec, I'll delete my post and make it look like you are cracking up. :rolleyes:

vidcc

10-26-2004, 08:31 PM

Ah, I must have missed that one.

Hang on a sec, I'll delete my post and make it look like you are cracking up. :rolleyes:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

well knowing hank i got my source from Foxnews

ruthie

10-26-2004, 08:58 PM

MSNBC, 10/26/04 (Transcript):

Amy Robach: And it's still unclear exactly when those explosives disappeared. Here to help shed some light on that question is Lai Ling. She was part of an NBC news crew that traveled to that facility with the 101st Airborne Division back in April of 2003. Lai Ling, can you set the stage for us? What was the situation like when you went into the area?

Lai Ling Jew: When we went into the area, we were actually leaving Karbala and we were initially heading to Baghdad with the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. The situation in Baghdad, the Third Infantry Division had taken over Baghdad and so they were trying to carve up the area that the 101st Airborne Division would be in charge of. As a result, they had trouble figuring out who was going to take up what piece of Baghdad. They sent us over to this area in Iskanderia. We didn't know it as the Qaqaa facility at that point but when they did bring us over there we stayed there for quite a while. We stayed overnight, almost 24 hours. And we walked around, we saw the bunkers that had been bombed, and that exposed all of the ordinances that just lied dormant on the desert.

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

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

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

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

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

LLJ: Thank you. Buzzflash (http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/10/ale04077.html)

Rat Faced

10-26-2004, 09:01 PM

Well, that seems different from the story about them not even seeing an Ammo Dump... :unsure:

/me waits for Hank and Manny's come back

40:30

Hanks serve

Rat Faced

10-26-2004, 09:46 PM

No cheating ruthie... Its Hanks Serve :P

ruthie

10-26-2004, 09:46 PM

a few sources Buzzflash (http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/10/ale04077.html)
Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1026-08.htm)
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/)

ruthie

10-26-2004, 09:47 PM

YOU KNEW!!!! Dammit..couldn't help myself. LOL

Rat Faced

10-26-2004, 09:51 PM

RF the all knowing :rolleyes:

And now for Saturdays Lottery Results....

ruthie

10-26-2004, 09:53 PM

RF the all knowing :rolleyes:

And now for Saturdays Lottery Results....
:o. My roving eye wasn't quick enough

BigBank_Hank

10-26-2004, 10:36 PM

Ruthie try as you may you to prove other wise this story was made up to hurt Bush before the election. Just like in 2000 when the DUI thing came out.

Here is a quote from Cliff May of Nation Review Online:

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.”

ruthie

10-26-2004, 10:39 PM

Don't believe it, Hank..Still waiting for more facts. LOL

vidcc

10-26-2004, 10:52 PM

Ruthie try as you may you to prove other wise this story was made up to hurt Bush before the election. Just like in 2000 when the DUI thing came out.

Here is a quote from Cliff May of Nation Review Online:
The Nation Review Online says it's fraud ?... well you could have knocked me over with a feather...hard facts indeed:rolleyes:

what it boils down to hank is that whilst accusing us of foaming at the mouth you take any denial of the story as fact and anything against bush as fiction.

Well let me reduce something even further.... i don't care anymore if this story is true or false as the bush campaign is telling outright lies about Kerry so i say tough luck

As to the DUI story..... tell me...was it true or false?

BigBank_Hank

10-27-2004, 12:57 AM

You are right Vid at least the DUI thing actually happened, unlike this and Rathergate.

As much as I like to talk politics I’m sick of this whole election. It seems as though this campaign has been going on for years now. Its time for it all to be over but I fear that stories like this are just the beginning. Next week we’ll have the whole election to dispute because no matter who wins its going to be contested.

vidcc

10-27-2004, 01:20 AM

No proof that it hasn't happened hank....... just political in fighting so far. The reporter you pointed to has stated that the 101 didn't do a full search and wasn't there to secure.
Buzzflash (http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/10/ale04077.html) here is the link to the transcript of your reporter

Three-week window
U.S. defense officials said Tuesday that the materials could have vanished during a period of about three weeks, between March 15, 2003, when inspectors for the IAEA confirmed that at least some of the materials were still stored under IAEA seal at Al-Qaqaa, and April 4, when U.S. troops arrived.

On March 15, said Melissa Fleming, a spokeswoman for the IAEA, “the seals on the doors on the bunkers were checked at many of the bunkers to see if they were still there and hadn’t been tampered with, and that was the case.”

The war in Iraq began March 20. Army officials told NBC News on condition of anonymity that troops from the Army’s 3rd Infantry did not arrive at Al-Qaqaa until April 4, finding “looters everywhere” carrying what they could out on their backs.

The troops searched bunkers and found conventional weapons but no high explosives, the officials said. Six days later, the 101st Airborne Division arrived. Neither group was specifically searching for HMX or RDX, and the complex is so large — with more than 1,000 buildings — that it is not clear that the troops even saw the bunkers that might have held the explosives.

The Iraq Survey Group discovered that the stockpiles of HMX and RDX were missing on May 27, seven weeks after the last visit by U.S. troops.

The only hard evedence you have that the story is a fraud...well the only question is timing..the explosives did go missing....is the fact that they could have been looted before the troops arrived... well i accept this is a possibility...but then you have to accept the possibility that they may not have been looted before...the statement seem to be tallying that the site was not secured... there is a huge amount of unaccounted time in which it could have happened

ruthie

10-27-2004, 07:52 AM

Here is just a bit of the latest. The White House better get their story straight. Scott McClellan's head must be spinning...kinda like in the exorcist.

White House officials reasserted yesterday that 380 tons of powerful explosives may have disappeared from a vast Iraqi military complex while Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq, saying a brigade of American soldiers did not find the explosives when they visited the complex on April 10, 2003, the day after Baghdad fell.

But the unit's commander said in an interview yesterday that his troops had not searched the site and had merely stopped there overnight.

The commander, Col. Joseph Anderson, of the Second Brigade of the Army's 101st Airborne Division, said he did not learn until this week that the site, Al Qaqaa, was considered sensitive, or that international inspectors had visited it before the war began in 2003 to inspect explosives that they had tagged during a decade of monitoring.

Colonel Anderson, who is now the chief of staff for the division and who spoke by telephone from Fort Campbell, Ky., said his troops had been driving north toward Baghdad and had paused at Al Qaqaa to make plans for their next push.

"We happened to stumble on it,'' he said. "I didn't know what the place was supposed to be. We did not get involved in any of the bunkers. It was not our mission. It was not our focus. We were just stopping there on our way to Baghdad. The plan was to leave that very same day. The plan was not to go in there and start searching. It looked like all the other ammunition supply points we had seen already."
NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/politics/27bomb.html?pagewanted=print&position=)

vidcc

10-27-2004, 03:42 PM

well hank it seems that the "fraud" has some meat on the bone

BigBank_Hank

10-27-2004, 04:13 PM

This is one of the most bizarre campaigns that I’ve ever seen.

This story is getting better and better though. Here is a quote from a senior advisor in the Kerry campaign:
'You don't know the truth and I don't know the truth.' He later underscored this point: 'I don't know the truth.'"

If no one knows the truth then why is Kerry continuing to run with this story?

ruthie

10-27-2004, 04:15 PM

It's a story, Hank. A real one, unlike the swift vets BS. Unlike Kerry didn't earn his medals.

Rat Faced

10-27-2004, 04:16 PM

Just a guess but...

Coz you all should know the truth? :rolleyes:

vidcc

10-27-2004, 04:18 PM

This is one of the most bizarre campaigns that I’ve ever seen.

This story is getting better and better though. Here is a quote from a senior advisor in the Kerry campaign:

If no one knows the truth then why is Kerry continuing to run with this story? because it isn't good for bush. Kerry's job is to make bush look as incompotent as possible...just as bush has to poo poo kerry.
you still have to admit hank that the story isn't a fraud as you said... the only thing that is in question is timing.

BigBank_Hank

10-27-2004, 04:19 PM

Rat Faced

10-27-2004, 04:22 PM

I would have thought a book was enough of a word...

Plus the words of the ex swift vets...

ruthie

10-27-2004, 04:30 PM

Since when does an Air Force Colonel have anything to do with Swifties?

vidcc

10-27-2004, 04:44 PM

You’d better not get me going on the switfies. If none of their charges are accurate why doesn’t Kerry come out and say hey these guys aren’t telling the truth? Not a word from the man who was actually there. nice try at deflection hank but we are talking about bush.... you came here and called us all idiots (out of character for you) saying we have been taken in by a fraud...well we are waiting for you to make a case to justify it...so far the wieght of evedence is in our favour

BTW kerry didn't have to call them liars...he already told his side...just you didn't listen

ruthie

10-27-2004, 04:51 PM

One of the first U.S. military units to reach the Al-Qaqaa military installation south of Baghdad after the invasion of Iraq did not have orders to search for the nearly 400 tons of explosives that are missing from the site, the unit spokesman said Tuesday.
The soldiers “secured the area they were in and looked in a limited amount of bunkers to ensure chemical weapons were not present in their area,” Wellman wrote in an e-mail message to The Associated Press. “Bombs were found but not chemical weapons in that immediate area.

“Orders were not given from higher to search or to secure the facility or to search for HE type munitions, as they (high-explosive weapons) were everywhere in Iraq,” he wrote.

The 101st Airborne was apparently at least the second military unit to arrive at Al-Qaqaa after the U.S. led invasion began. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told The Washington Post that the 3rd Infantry Division reached the site around April 3, fought with Iraq forces and occupied the site. They left after two days, headed to Baghdad, he told the newspaper for Wednesday’s editions.

Associated Press Correspondent Chris Tomlinson, who was embedded with the 3rd Infantry but didn’t go to Al-Qaqaa, described the search of Iraqi military facilities south of Baghdad as brief, cursory missions to seek out hostile troops, not to inventory or secure weapons stockpiles. One task force, he said, searched four Iraqi military bases in a single day, meeting no resistance and finding only abandoned buildings, some containing weapons and ammunition.
Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-473825.php)
There is more to the article.
This was an ill-prepared for war at best, as well as illegal.

Biggles

10-27-2004, 05:59 PM

There are, no matter what the spin put on purely for the US election, some pretty indisputable facts.

The most salient of these is that the insurgents (and the latest US Army estimates put these at about 20,000 fighters) have no shortage of arms and explosives. These clearly are coming from somewhere. This problem of stolen munitions is not new and is generally accepted by most sources as an endemic problem in Iraq. There are stock piles everywhere and not enough troops to defend them - almost as if Saddam had always intended for this kind of guerilla action. ;)

I believe Bremmer and Sanchez have both said the big mistake in the war was not going in with enough troops to ensure law and order prevailed after Saddam was toppled. On top of this there was a considerable drive to find WMD not conventional weapons. This particular buck stops with Rumsfeld not Bush. However, it is a moot point as to how many actual troops would have been required - probably more than was available.

BigBank_Hank

10-27-2004, 06:24 PM

nice try at deflection hank but we are talking about bush.... you came here and called us all idiots (out of character for you) saying we have been taken in by a fraud...well we are waiting for you to make a case to justify it...so far the wieght of evedence is in our favour

BTW kerry didn't have to call them liars...he already told his side...just you didn't listen

Firstly I didn’t bring up the swifties Ruthie did.

Secondly I did call you all idiots, which I shouldn’t have. I don’t like to use personal attacks and I was really mad at the time of posting that and I still am, but that doesn’t excuse me.

Lastly the article that I posted yesterday from Newsmax.com is the proof that these claims are false. Now that this thing has been ousted 60 Minutes cancelled their report that they were going to air on Sunday, and the original reporters of the story The New York Times made this a front page story and its now all the way on page 10. CBS decided not to run the show because they thought the story wouldn’t hold. Wouldn’t hold?

You tell me if a major news media outlet won’t air a story because they are scared that it “won’t hold” that the story is creditable.

hobbes

10-27-2004, 06:30 PM

There are, no matter what the spin put on purely for the US election, some pretty indisputable facts.

On top of this there was a considerable drive to find WMD not conventional weapons. This particular buck stops with Rumsfeld not Bush. However, it is a moot point as to how many actual troops would have been required - probably more than was available.

Biggles,

Why ignore conventional stockpiles and attempt to find weapons (WMD) that you know don't exist?

DanB

10-27-2004, 06:35 PM

Biggles,

Why ignore conventional stockpiles and attempt to find weapons (WMD) that you know don't exist?

Maintain the illusion perhaps?

Everose

10-27-2004, 06:35 PM

That is a good question, Hobbes. I have also wondered, if these explosives could have been moved, what else could have been moved?

vidcc

10-27-2004, 06:38 PM

There is no proof yet that the story is false hank...there is lots of spin on it.... The republicans playing it down saying it could have gone missing before the army got there and the democrats saying it could have gone missing after the army got there...both have a possibility of being correct. The site wasn't fully searched or secured after the army arrived, the Army are saying this.
Now i have accepted the possibility that it may have gone missing before...why can't you accept that it may have gone missing after?.....after all you made the point of quoting someone that said knowbody knows the truth.
Why would 60 mins. need to run the show anymore.? the cat's out of the bag and most media stations are reporting fresh stuff as it happens.

Again hank i have to state that only the timing of the removal is being disbuted...not the removal

hobbes

10-27-2004, 06:43 PM

Maintain the illusion perhaps?

So one would simply bypass the legitimate threat to create an illusion that they were looking for something. Would fit nicely, except that the military was constantly detonating conventional weapons caches as they were uncovered on the march toward Baghdad. Why ignore this one?

Conspiracy is so much more fun than reality. You don't have to prove anything, just suggest it as a possibility.

Right now, the board is asking us to prove that those weapons didn't exist. When we proved to them that the WMD didn't exist, they got all pissed. I'm at a loss as to how to please some people.

vidcc

10-27-2004, 06:50 PM

Biggles,

Why ignore conventional stockpiles and attempt to find weapons (WMD) that you know don't exist?Not my question to answer but I do believe that bush thought, as the rest of the world thought at the time, that saddam had WMD. That's why conventional weapons were ignored.
But we now know this was incorrect and was based on bad intelligence.

I wonder though as we actually knew about this particular site and it's contents why it wasn't destroyed by air attack on the first couple of days. If it was because they thought it contained bio or nuclear weapons why was there so little effort to search and secure it as priority before moving into Bagdad?

Edit:
Right now, the board is asking us to prove that those weapons didn't exist. When we proved to them that the WMD didn't exist, they got all pissed. I'm at a loss as to how to please some people.
This wasn't WMD it was explosives that could be used for certain WMD but is also for civil engineering

hobbes

10-27-2004, 06:59 PM

Not my question to answer but I do believe that bush thought, as the rest of the world thought at the time, that saddam had WMD. That's why conventional weapons were ignored.
But we now know this was incorrect and was based on bad intelligence.

I asked the question because I have been getting the feeling that several forum members do not accept Biggles assumption that Bush ever thought SAddam had WMD.

Too me, this point totally changes everything.

Were he to have believed that WMD were there and acted to circumvent the inefficiency of the UN, that portends much less ominously than going in fully knowing that no weapons were there.

I was just interested in knowing what people thought about Biggles assumption.

hobbes

10-27-2004, 07:04 PM

Edit:
This wasn't WMD it was explosives that could be used for certain WMD but is also for civil engineering

In an earlier post, it was stated that those weapons (the conventional stockpile this thread is about) never existed. The rebuttal was, prove they didn't exist.

I just found this amusing because everyone got so pissed off when we proved that WMD didn't exist by invading Iraq, but now they want us to prove that these conventional weapons didn't exist. That is irony.

I don't know or care about this stockpile, there are caches of weapons all over Iraq, this is just one. It was the irony which amused me.

vidcc

10-27-2004, 07:04 PM

hobbes

10-27-2004, 07:09 PM

I see.....

Well if i wanted to make a conspiracy theory out of it i would suggest bush knew the truth but isn't as dumb as we have been making out and kept it to himself...... if you want to pull a stunt on such world scale proportions the fewer people in on it the better :rolleyes:

just a theory :lol:

Funny you should say that Vidcc.

Today at lunch I stated that I had misunderestimated my appetite. I then went on to say "Fool me once appetite, shame on me, no you.... You won't fool me again, is what I mean".

I postulated that this buffoonery was a facade to mask his genious as the puppetmaster in a global conspiracy. But to me he is hamming up the act a bit.

Busyman

10-27-2004, 07:16 PM

I asked the question because I have been getting the feeling that several forum members do not accept Biggles assumption that Bush ever thought SAddam had WMD.

Too me, this point totally changes everything.

Were he to have believed that WMD were there and acted to circumvent the inefficiency of the UN, that portends much less ominously than going in fully knowing that no weapons were there.

I was just interested in knowing what people thought about Biggles assumption.
There's the possibility that he rushed to war and thought he might get lucky.

Biggles

10-27-2004, 07:17 PM

There was an enormous effort to find WMD. It was, after all, the raison d'etre for the war. To not look might have seemed - well odd :blink:

Saddam did have WMD and used them against the Iranians.

I did not at the time believe the intelligence reports showed Saddam was an imminent threat and considered the spin placed on his dangerousness somewhat overplayed. I was, however, mildly surprised that the UN had so successfully removed his WMD capability. (A Brownie point to the UN?)

The obfustication that Saddam pursued from about 98 onwards was perhaps not so much to fool us but rather his regional enemies who he would like to have think he was still a power to be reckoned with. Oh what tangled webs we weave!

Iraq is awash with weapons - almost all his neighbours disliked him and Iraq had a large army. Securing all the conventional weapons will be a major task. If this particular piece of looting took place (and boy did they loot) then it is a shame as the UN did have seals on the place and reported its contents. The explosives missing are perfect for car bombs and as there are car bombs daily it would suggest that the insurgents have all the explosives they need. If the story is a fraud then one must assume they looted their explosives from another site.

hobbes

10-27-2004, 08:21 PM

There was an enormous effort to find WMD. It was, after all, the raison d'etre for the war. To not look might have seemed - well odd :blink:

Odd perhaps, but why leave this stockpile which was apparently a known entity and which may now be the source of car bombs, when detonating so many others?

It would seem to me that blowing up conventional stockpiles would in no way impede an apparent search for WMD. In fact, knowing that they would never be found, I would go to all the real threats first. I would blow them up quite demonstratively to show the public just what a threat Saddam was. "Look at all this stuff people. You know we're on the trail."

I think the conspiracy theorists need to become a little more creative, I've pretty much trumped their little diversion scenario in 1 cup of coffee. :lol:

Biggles

10-27-2004, 08:31 PM

To be fair to the Coalition, the sheer scale of the looting took everyone by surprise. There was never any intention of blowing up all the military equipment as it was supposed to go to the new Iraqi Army.

20/20 Hindsight is a wonderful thing but there were people at the time suggesting that keeping the existing army intact might not be a bad idea.

There is every probability that if this stuff was stolen it was stolen early rather than late. What is noteworthy is the apparent ease with which insurgents move explosives around the country.

Busyman

10-27-2004, 08:46 PM

Odd perhaps, but why leave this stockpile which was apparently a known entity and which may now be the source of car bombs, when detonating so many others?

It would seem to me that blowing up conventional stockpiles would in no way impede an apparent search for WMD. In fact, knowing that they would never be found, I would go to all the real threats first. I would blow them up quite demonstratively to show the public just what a threat Saddam was. "Look at all this stuff people. You know we're on the trail."

I think the conspiracy theorists need to become a little more creative, I've pretty much trumped their little diversion scenario in 1 cup of coffee. :lol:
You have trumped nothing.

I don't subscribe to these 'theories' either but as I've said, Bush could have hoped to get lucky. Even I figured he would have found something.

I just thought this iminent threat bullshit was...well...bullshit. :dry:

hobbes

10-27-2004, 09:10 PM

There is every probability that if this stuff was stolen it was stolen early rather than late. What is noteworthy is the apparent ease with which insurgents move explosives around the country.

And that your avatar is a plane, but I am spamming. So I will STFU.

Biggles

10-27-2004, 09:41 PM

And that your avatar is a plane, but I am spamming. So I will STFU.

:shifty:

On the other hand, why stop when you are having fun.

BigBank_Hank

10-27-2004, 10:35 PM

Busyman

10-27-2004, 10:50 PM

There is a lot of talk that these weapons could have been moved after we got there and failed to secure it. No one however seems to question how in the hell you move nearly 400 tons of explosives without anyone noticing. It would have taken 40 semi trucks to move that much material to another location.
Very logical ;)

I think alot of folks just don't put alot past the whole administration so if something is done ass backwards, such as not securing weapons stockpiles, then you go, " :lol: I'm not surprised".

I mean you have to admit, Bush sent our troops to Iraq with no post-war plan.

Who'd have thunk it? :blink:

vidcc

10-27-2004, 11:05 PM

There is a lot of talk that these weapons could have been moved after we got there and failed to secure it. No one however seems to question how in the hell you move nearly 400 tons of explosives without anyone noticing. It would have taken 40 semi trucks to move that much material to another location.who said it all went in one go ? there is at least a seven week window during which it could have gone and there was widespead looting occuring constantly.

Also the missing stuff is not weapons, it was explosives.

BTW. i would put it as half that amount of semi trucks...even less if you remove axleweight restrictions as i'm sure they wouldn't be worried about gross vehicle weight:shifty: ... but then what makes you think large trucks were used? if i was them i would be using ordianry pick ups or cars...honest it wouldn't take long with enough of them.

Rat Faced

10-27-2004, 11:11 PM

and there was widespead looting occuring constantly

...except the oilfields.

vidcc

10-27-2004, 11:15 PM

...except the oilfields.
huh?

hobbes

10-27-2004, 11:15 PM

Arms experts say the missing explosives - monitored by the UN nuclear watchdog until the March 2003 invasion - could potentially be used to make a detonator for a nuclear bomb or other explosive device.

From the BBC.

Since Iraq has no nuclear weapons, why would the BBC make such an inane statement. Are they to conjure one from prayer.

It seems that WMD are potentially present or definitely absent based on the agenda of the aspiring author.

Rat Faced

10-27-2004, 11:17 PM

to make a detonator for

I agree... A Detonator is not a Nuclear Weapon.

That is just plain scaremongering :dry:

vidcc

10-27-2004, 11:25 PM

From the BBC.

Since Iraq has no nuclear weapons, why would the BBC make such an inane statement. Are they to conjure one from prayer.

It seems that WMD are potentially present or definitely absent based on the agenda of the aspiring author.
well they have many uses...i think the WMD link is being put to make the missing explosives seem "more dangerous" by giving a worse case scenario.
That said it could be taken out of the country to a place where it could be used in WMD....ironically the very thing we were supposed to have stopped.
I would say they would be more likely used for car bombs etc. The opposing side is very adaptable and evolves constantly in their tactics.

Much of the arguement about the mismanagement was that a country once contained has been turned into a ticking out of control bomb with a lit fuse

Explosives can be made from everyday items found in supermarkets if one has the knowledge. so if 200 lbs of fertilizer is stolen i guess a theory would be put that it was to make a bomb.

vidcc

10-28-2004, 01:18 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136761,00.html

something jumped up at me whilst reading this story...

"A political candidate who jumps to conclusion without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief," the president said in a speech in Lititz, Pa.a kind of ironic quote from bush seeing as he didn't actually have the "facts" before going into Iraq :rolleyes:

scroff

10-28-2004, 02:50 AM

Here's another little peice to this puzzle... the credibility of which I leave to the reader.....

Mohammed al-Sharaa, who heads the science ministry's site monitoring department and worked with UN weapons inspectors under Saddam, said "it is impossible that these materials could have been taken from this site before the regime's fall."

He said he and other officials had been ordered a month earlier to insure that "not even a shred of paper left the sites." "The officials that were inside this facility (Al-Qaqaa) beforehand confirm that not even a shred of paper left it before the fall and I spoke to them about it and they even issued certified statements to this effect which the US-led coalition was aware of."
TurkishPress.com (http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=31993)

Comic_Peddler

10-28-2004, 02:52 AM

Just a side not scroff, but I think Bush has infilterated your signature and screwed up the address to your web site in a painly obvious attempt to thwart you.

scroff

10-28-2004, 02:56 AM

Just a side not scroff, but I think Bush has infilterated your signature and screwed up the address to your web site in a painly obvious attempt to thwart you.
Zounds! Those evil republican gremlins have struck again! :01:

Fixing it now:unsure: Thanks for the heads up...

ruthie

10-28-2004, 12:37 PM

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 27 - Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday.

The Iraqis described an orgy of theft so extensive that enterprising residents rented their trucks to looters. But some looting was clearly indiscriminate, with people grabbing anything they could find and later heaving unwanted items off the trucks.

Two witnesses were employees of Al Qaqaa - one a chemical engineer and the other a mechanic - and the third was a former employee, a chemist, who had come back to retrieve his records, determined to keep them out of American hands. The mechanic, Ahmed Saleh Mezher, said employees asked the Americans to protect the site but were told this was not the soldiers' responsibility.

The accounts do not directly address the question of when 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives vanished from the site sometime after early March, the last time international inspectors checked the seals on the bunkers where the material was stored. It is possible that Iraqi forces removed some explosives before the invasion.

But the accounts make clear that what set off much if not all of the looting was the arrival and swift departure of American troops, who did not secure the site after inducing the Iraqi forces to abandon it.

"The looting started after the collapse of the regime," said Wathiq al-Dulaimi, a regional security chief, who was based nearby in Latifiya. But once it had begun, he said, the booty streamed toward Baghdad.

Earlier this month, on Oct. 10, the directorate of national monitoring at the Ministry of Science and Technology notified the International Atomic Energy Agency that the explosives, which are used in demolition and missiles and are the raw material for plastic explosives, were missing. The agency has monitored the explosives because they can also be used as the initiator of an atomic bomb.

Agency officials examined the explosives in January 2003 and noted in early March that their seals were still in place. On April 3, the Third Infantry Division arrived with the first American troops.

Chris Anderson, a photographer for U.S. News and World Report who was with the division's Second Brigade, recalled that the area was jammed with American armor on April 3 and 4, which he believed made the removal of the explosives unlikely. "It would be quite improbable for this amount of weapons to be looted at that time because of the traffic jam of armor," he said.

The brigade blew up numerous caches of arms throughout the area, he said. Mr. Anderson said he did not enter the munitions compound.

The Second Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division arrived outside the site on April 10, under the command of Col. Joseph Anderson. The brigade had been ordered to move quickly to Baghdad because of civil disorder there after Mr. Hussein's government fell on April 9.

They gathered at Al Qaqaa, about 30 miles south, simply as a matter of convenience, Colonel Anderson said in an interview this week. He said that when he arrived at the site - unaware of its significance - he saw no signs of looting, but was not paying close attention.

Because he thought the brigade would be moving on to Baghdad within hours, Al Qaqaa was of no importance to his mission, he said, and he was unaware of the explosives that international inspectors said were hidden inside.

Pentagon officials said Wednesday that analysts were examining surveillance photographs of the munitions site. But they expressed doubts that the photographs, which showed vehicles at the location on several occasions early in the conflict, before American troops moved through the area, would be able to indicate conclusively when the explosives were removed.

Col. David Perkins, who commanded the Second Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, called it "very highly improbable" that 380 tons of explosives could have been trucked out of Al Qaqaa in the weeks after American troops arrived.

Moving that much material, said Colonel Perkins, who spoke Wednesday to news agencies and cable television, "would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks."

He conceded that some looting of the site had taken place. But a chemical engineer who worked at Al Qaqaa and identified himself only as Khalid said that once troops left the base itself, people streamed in to steal computers and anything else of value from the offices. They also took munitions like artillery shells, he said.

Mr. Mezher, the mechanic, said it took the looters about two weeks to disassemble heavy machinery at the site and carry that off after the smaller items were gone.

James Glanz reported from Baghdad for this article and Jim Dwyer from New York. Ali Adeeb contributed reporting from Baghdad, and Khalid W. Hussein and Zainab Obeid fromAl Qaqaa.. NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/international/middleeast/28bomb.html?oref=login&oref=login)

DanB

10-28-2004, 01:05 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136761,00.html

something jumped up at me whilst reading this story...

"A political candidate who jumps to conclusion without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief," the president said in a speech in Lititz, Pa.
a kind of ironic quote from bush seeing as he didn't actually have the "facts" before going into Iraq :rolleyes:

:lol: I heard that last night when BBC News24 was airing ABC

btw who does ABC favour? :unsure:

ruthie

10-28-2004, 01:15 PM

Good question. Right wingers go on about the "liberal" media here, as far as our news stations. Personally, I totally disagree. I find them fairly conservative. Some of them are up to asking questions they should ask, however they fail to challenge the misleading statements which continue the deceptions,instead of calling them on it.
I like Ted Kopell for the most part..he is ABC, and does a show called Nightline, after the regular news.

Storm

10-28-2004, 01:43 PM

BigBank_Hank, ive got a question, if this was made up to hurt bush, why not wait till a day before the election and then drop the bomb? wouldnt that do way more damage to bushes voters?

vidcc

10-28-2004, 01:59 PM

BigBank_Hank, ive got a question, if this was made up to hurt bush, why not wait till a day before the election and then drop the bomb? wouldnt that do way more damage to bushes voters?
It was planned to air this coming sunday...But it got out before.

Biggles

10-28-2004, 05:22 PM

From the BBC.

Since Iraq has no nuclear weapons, why would the BBC make such an inane statement. Are they to conjure one from prayer.

It seems that WMD are potentially present or definitely absent based on the agenda of the aspiring author.

The explosives were part of Saddam's defunct nuclear programme which is why the UN nuclear watch dog was involved with this particular batch of explosives. Of course one would need all the other bits to make a nuclear bomb so consequently the statement is somewhat redundant apart from the last few words. The explosives will blow a car up beautifully.

However, there were lots of munitions dumps in Iraq and it is almost impossible to verify which one the insurgents looted their explosives from. Indeed there are so many different insurgent groups there is unlikely to be one source of supply. Many of the explosives may have been looted by ordinary criminals and are being sold on the black market - a boom industry in Iraq by all accounts.

ruthie

10-29-2004, 02:04 AM

Now there are tapes of when the 101 division got to the site...it plainly shows the seal on the door, and barrels of the explosive materials...it was NOT looted previously. Done deal. Just watched the tape on CNN

BigBank_Hank

10-29-2004, 02:20 AM

Is that the best you can do?

You still can’t explain how they were able to move that much material with no one noticing.

You also can’t explain the satellite photos that the DOD just released of large semi transporting materials from the site.

So yes done deal.

Edit: Just to add tomorrow General Tommy Franks is going to put an end to all of this. Joe Lockhart (Kerry spokesmen) came out today and basically called the General that ran two successful wars that he was a liar. General Franks didn’t take to kindly to that.

ruthie

10-29-2004, 02:50 AM

Is that the best you can do?

don't need to do better, but since you don't do your own research, perhaps I will do a bit of cut and paste. ROFL :smoke:

You still can’t explain how they were able to move that much material with no one noticing.

You also can’t explain the satellite photos that the DOD just released of large semi transporting materials from the site.

"Senior Defense officials adamantly refused to speculate as to what is happening at the bunker highlighted in the photo, saying it's anyone's guess. " :unsure:

Edit: Just to add tomorrow General Tommy Franks is going to put an end to all of this. Joe Lockhart (Kerry spokesmen) came out today and basically called the General that ran two successful wars that he was a liar. General Franks didn’t take to kindly to that.
poor baby :cry1:

cpt_azad

10-29-2004, 03:07 AM

Edit: Just to add tomorrow General Tommy Franks is going to put an end to all of this. Joe Lockhart (Kerry spokesmen) came out today and basically called the General that ran two successful wars that he was a liar. General Franks didn’t take to kindly to that.

poor baby :cry1:

what a crybaby :dry: suck it up mr. general guy.

BigBank_Hank

10-29-2004, 03:19 AM

don't need to do better, but since you don't do your own research, perhaps I will do a bit of cut and paste. ROFL :smoke:

You do need to do better because there are still a whole lot of holes in this story.

The tape also doesn’t mention the 3rd I.D. who got there before the 101st and did battle with the Iraqis at the site. The commander noted that some looting had taken place. Plus the removal of these explosives would have had to take place on a road log jammed with traffic and with jets flying overhead. I think that someone from the 3rd I.D. or someone overhead might have noticed a convoy of trucks moving around. Just a thought.

ruthie

10-29-2004, 03:42 AM

hank...the tape showed the seals still in place, and barrels of explosive materials. Were they all in the same bunker? Don't know. Meanwhile, as usual, the administration cops to NOTHING. Bush and Cheney try to say Kerry denigrates the troops by talking about the missing explosives...but guess what? It's been the darlings of the Republicans blaming the troops...

In falsely accusing (http://mediamatters.org/items/200410270002) Senator John Kerry of denigrating American troops, it is in fact conservatives themselves -- including one of Bush-Cheney '04's most vocal campaigners -- who are suggesting that soldiers on the ground are responsible for explosives going missing in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html?ex=1256356800&en=3bcf849cf3a68472&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland). On FOX News Channel, both Weekly Standard editor William Kristol and conservative radio host Laura Ingraham claimed that it was the soldiers -- not President George W. Bush -- who decided not to search for the explosives. And on NBC's Today, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, an active Bush campaigner (http://www.2004nycgop.org/cgi-data/speeches/files/c9amag533wqt110276ixn2s44k2uxpyf.shtml), placed the "actual responsibility" squarely on the troops.

Biggles

10-29-2004, 08:18 AM

The tape does change things and does pose difficulties with regards this stuff being moved prior to the war.

One only has to look at the way the Iraqis looted almost every building just after the fall of Saddam to see how they could have moved this stuff. It did not have to go out in one lot or in neat bundles. The explosives are marketable, it simply could have experienced the same plague of locusts effect that everything else suffered from.

Some might have gone on trucks, some on handcarts, some simply by rolling the barrels. Nor would the explosives have had to go far. It would have simply melted into the cellars of the nearest towns and villages.

Moving 380 tonnes of explosives a distance under normal regulations would be a pain in the butt - simply grabbing a barrel and moving it a couple of miles in the hope of selling it later is a different matter. Especially if hundreds of other people have the same idea.

They stripped hospitals, schools and museums in hours doing this - removing not only portable goods but fixed assets like the plant and machinery, copper cables - everything of value!

vidcc

10-29-2004, 02:19 PM

The "convoy of trucks" theory is irrelevent really and is more of a red herring than a logistical possibility. David Kay the former weapons inspector said to think of "ants" in the way they move things. He also said that one truck in a picture is meaningless...as did Powell. This site is huge...as big as manhatten by all accounts

During WW2 how did POWs move all that earth from the escape tunnels under the noses of their captors?...... Perhaps it's this way of thinking that is being used to try to dismiss this story that is why we are in trouble. If they can't see how an adaptable enemy could do such a thing how could they possibly beat them?

I do agree that any failings in Iraq are being blamed on the troops by this administration and then they try to blame Kerry for blaming the troops...but kerry is very clear on where he lays the blame, and it's with Bush.

BigBank_Hank

10-29-2004, 03:55 PM

The end is near.

There is a Pentagon briefing within the hour with a soldier from the 3rd I.D. that his company removed 200 plus tons of explosives from the site.

The smell of victory is sweet.

ruthie

10-29-2004, 03:59 PM

Do you mean after they broke the UN seal? LOL

Rat Faced

10-29-2004, 04:08 PM

ruthies correct..

Unless he states they were the ones with the UN Seal, then the statement is meaningless.. There will be have been loads that have gone... the importance is the fact that these were sealed by the UN.

If they were... then the 3rd ID shouldnt have touched them. The Americans had no authority to remove them...especially without informing the UN of their new location beforehand.

vidcc

10-29-2004, 04:14 PM

would this be the same pentagon that said the seals where there...then said they wern't...then said they saw no explosives...... now you are saying they are going to tell us they removed explosives ?

The same pentagon that said there were searches then that there wasn't as the troops were just "on route"

Flip floppers !!!!!!!!!!

ruthie

10-29-2004, 04:16 PM

I am amazed that people here still buy the line(s) of shit coming out of the administration.

Rat Faced

10-29-2004, 04:18 PM

vidcc

10-29-2004, 04:25 PM

Please guys...

You shouldnt shatter peoples trust in dreams. Remember when you were Hank and Manny's age huh?

At this rate, you'll spill the beans about Santa and the Tooth Fairy... dont upset them :(
let's keep the insults out of it rat or i shall have to close this thread....

:lol: :lol:

ruthie

10-29-2004, 04:26 PM

Are you saying I've been scammed about Santa and the tooth fairy?

BigBank_Hank

10-29-2004, 04:41 PM

Rat I’ve always treated you with respect and I have always respectfully disagreed with you views and for you a moderator on this board to come out and say something like this is completely uncalled for.

It’s nice to know that you think because of my age that I am too stupid to comprehend current events.

Rat Faced

10-29-2004, 04:52 PM

Not at all Hank, believe me i aint trying to get at you for your age, despite the joke... my appolgise if you took it serious ;)

I wish i still had the optimism that you show.

Its just time to face the facts of life:

People need to eat.

People need to drink.

People need to excrete.

Politicians need to Lie.

Its not only the politicians of the opposition... its all of them.

vidcc

10-29-2004, 05:04 PM

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

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 (http://search.foxnews.com/info.foxnws/redirs_all.htm?pgtarg=wbsdogpile&qcat=web&qkw=International%20Atomic%20Energy%20Agency)) 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 (http://search.foxnews.com/info.foxnws/redirs_all.htm?pgtarg=wbsdogpile&qcat=web&qkw=Al-Qaqaa)) 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

10-29-2004, 05:09 PM

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

10-29-2004, 06:58 PM

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

10-29-2004, 07:07 PM

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

10-29-2004, 09:50 PM

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 (http://www.anywhichway.net/article.php/20030518133730152) 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." :blink:

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 (http://www.anywhichway.net/filemgmt/singlefile.php?lid=34), 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 (http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/elbaradei27jan03.htm),

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? :lol: