Explosives stolen in Iraq

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 ?

"Is this a failure of the Bush administration ?"

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruthie

"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.

rofl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny

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:

I am curious as well.

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....

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.

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....

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rf9rider

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

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

---

I commend manny as well. ;)

Now to those accomplishments.....................

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

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?

I should have included a link to my post. Here you go Story

Quote:

---

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]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

I should have included a link to my post. Here you go Story

---

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.

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

That would be nice, try it some time ;)

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

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?

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:

Quote:

---

Hey how about some more 'real news'?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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?

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

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.

Yeah...

And now others are refuting...

Whats your point?

Wasnt exactly Pravda or The Drudge :blink:

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

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

I said that reputable sources were disputing it earlier.

Arent you reading the posts in this thread?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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:

Quote:

---

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

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