Explosives stolen in Iraq

**BigBank_Hank** · 10-27-2004, 04:19 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.

**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

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

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
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

Originally Posted by vidcc

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

Originally Posted by Biggles

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?