More good news from Iraq

[Rob]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/index.html

Wonderful.

[opiskelija]

The world is truly a safer place now.

[jrock5730]

I read this earlier and cannot believe that this could happen. You would think that shit would be in American hands long ago, but apparently no one thought to secure the place. Its a shame that our soldiers will probably be killed with this material. This just shows how much lack of planning there was.

[opiskelija]

You also have to love the timing of the release by the IAEA

[pedelen99]

I read this earlier and cannot believe that this could happen. You would think that shit would be in American hands long ago, but apparently no one thought to secure the place. Its a shame that our soldiers will probably be killed with this material. This just shows how much lack of planning there was.

There's lots of evidence that the administration knew about this a long time ago and has been covering it up.

- Phil

[Rob]

The administration is covering up alot of crap about this disaster in the Middle East.

[AnyonebutBush]

You would think our satellites would be watching those sites 24/7...The timing of the announcement? well it just happened a few days ago. And Kerry has every reason to attack the president, its clear as day we rushed into this with no plan, that is not a statement Kerry is using just to get elected its very very true and a lot of people are dieing because of it. I hope we get we find them bombs before they find our troops.

[opiskelija]

You would think our satellites would be watching those sites 24/7...The timing of the announcement? well it just happened a few days ago. And Kerry has every reason to attack the president, its clear as day we rushed into this with no plan, that is not a statement Kerry is using just to get elected its very very true and a lot of people are dieing because of it. I hope we get we find them bombs before they find our troops.

For clarification, the weapons went missing closer to a month ago, and concerning the timing, of course it is the IAEA releasing this very close to the election. i doubt there is any love-loss between ElBaradei and Bush.

[pedelen99]

You would think our satellites would be watching those sites 24/7...The timing of the announcement? well it just happened a few days ago. And Kerry has every reason to attack the president, its clear as day we rushed into this with no plan, that is not a statement Kerry is using just to get elected its very very true and a lot of people are dieing because of it. I hope we get we find them bombs before they find our troops.

This material was tagged and tracked by the UN well before we went into Iraq... this is material that could potentailly be used for nuclear weapons (which is why it was tagged) but also had civilian uses (which is why it wasn't destroyed). We knew where it was and what it was before we invaded Iraq... to say that we just found out that 760.000 pounds of plastic explosives are missing is absurd.

- Phil

[AnyonebutBush]

For clarification, the weapons went missing closer to a month ago, and concerning the timing, of course it is the IAEA releasing this very close to the election. i doubt there is any love-loss between ElBaradei and Bush.Thanks for the clarification, It is early and I havent had my coffee yet. The timing might and might not have a reason, but to me its not about the timing this is a serious matter and we should not be thinking about the election because it doesnt matter who is president, Kerry and Bush are safe from those bombs it is our troops that will be dieing from them. This is Bush's war and he deserves all the responsibilty for everything that happens in Iraq.

[jrock5730]

This material was tagged and tracked by the UN well before we went into Iraq... this is material that could potentailly be used for nuclear weapons (which is why it was tagged) but also had civilian uses (which is why it wasn't destroyed). We knew where it was and what it was before we invaded Iraq... to say that we just found out that 760.000 pounds of plastic explosives are missing is absurd.

- Phil

Well, they said it, so someone fucked up somewhere along the line.

[pedelen99]

For clarification, the weapons went missing closer to a month ago, and concerning the timing, of course it is the IAEA releasing this very close to the election. i doubt there is any love-loss between ElBaradei and Bush.

Just to clarify, this was an arms dump of 380 tons of plastic explosives which did not go missing 'just a month ago'. It disappeared shortly after the invasion.

The Times article clearly shows that the Iraqi's notified Jerry Bremer about this last May, which means the administration knew about it then at the latest. And the administration did not report the loss to the UN, which it was obligated to do.

- Phil

[opiskelija]

Just to clarify, this was an arms dump of 380 tons of plastic explosives which did not go missing 'just a month ago'. It disappeared shortly after the invasion.

The Times article clearly shows that the Iraqi's notified Jerry Bremer about this last May, which means the administration knew about it then at the latest. And the administration did not report the loss to the UN, which it was obligated to do.

- Phil

thanks

[AnyonebutBush]

This material was tagged and tracked by the UN well before we went into Iraq... this is material that could potentailly be used for nuclear weapons (which is why it was tagged) but also had civilian uses (which is why it wasn't destroyed). We knew where it was and what it was before we invaded Iraq... to say that we just found out that 760.000 pounds of plastic explosives are missing is absurd.

- Phil As you can see I am not a Bush fan, But I dont care when or why those weapons have been stolen, I just hope that we get them back very very soon. When it comes to a situation like this we should all just forget about the election and hope that they are recovered cuz in same wierd way we are all on the same side.

[AnyonebutBush]

You people always make me late for work :banned

[pedelen99]

As you can see I am not a Bush fan, But I dont care when or why those weapons have been stolen, I just hope that we get them back very very soon. When it comes to a situation like this we should all just forget about the election and hope that they are recovered cuz in same wierd way we are all on the same side.

They're not recoverable. This is the stuff that's being used against us, in car bombs and IEDs. It's undoubtably scattered across the country by now.

- Phil

[ss10mets]

I saw this article but didn't want to post it until someone else discovered it...

At least we secured what was important first.... the oil fields.... god forbid anything happens to them when we are trying to fight terrorism....

[pedelen99]

I saw this article but didn't want to post it until someone else discovered it...

At least we secured what was important first.... the oil fields.... god forbid anything happens to them when we are trying to fight terrorism....

I just don't understand this. We knew the stuff was there before we went in... wouldn't one well placed bomb have turned that ammo dump into a very large crater?

- Phil

[jrock5730]

I just don't understand this. We knew the stuff was there before we went in... wouldn't one well placed bomb have turned that ammo dump into a very large crater?

- Phil

Its amazing what the human brain can do isn't it?

[ss10mets]

Honestly, republicans can say what they want about us not listening to their side but they have to admit this was a huge mistake and someone needs to be held accountable. We need to question why we were able to secure oil fields but not tons of explosives...

[sliver108]

Hey Bush supporters… OPEN YOUR EYES! This whole thing is just absurd! How much incompetence must the Bush administration show you? 380 tons of explosives people. This is an inexcusable mistake that must not be overlooked!

[Daevian]

And for the record it would take around.....like......I dunno 33 big ass trucks. I mean seriously who doesn't notice 33 big ass trucks?:lol

[pedelen99]

And for the record it would take around.....like......I dunno 33 big ass trucks. I mean seriously who doesn't notice 33 big ass trucks?:lol

And probably forklifts and shit... not exactly a small, discrete operation.

From the AP:

"At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said US-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. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity. "

How do you not secure 380 tons of high explosives?

- Phil

[marco j]

I just don't understand this. We knew the stuff was there before we went in... wouldn't one well placed bomb have turned that ammo dump into a very large crater?

- Phil


also if we knew about "hard to find" WMD's they might have been placed here!

i would like to know if any bush supporters here are upset over this?

[dylanquirt]

Funny, where are the Rep to defend Bush from this huge fuck up. I am sure that they are putting together a plan to point the fingure at Kerry. I mean 380 tons, come on!!!

[pedelen99]

Here's a link to the NY Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html?hp&ex=1098763200&en=fd35fdf4b6d46d61&ei=5094&partner=homepage

"After the invasion, when widespread looting began in Iraq, the international weapons experts grew concerned that the Qaqaa stockpile could fall into unfriendly hands. In May, an internal I.A.E.A. memorandum warned that terrorists might be helping "themselves to the greatest explosives bonanza in history."

- Phil

[marco j]

this is just unbelievable. now 380 tons of explosives are loose in a mostly anti-american region. now insurgents and terrorist's can hold out for an indefinite amount of time.

[AdamCU81]

Whoa! I just found 40 lbs of C4 on Ebay!!!

[pedelen99]

Whoa! I just found 40 lbs of C4 on Ebay!!!

Snap that shit up! Now we only have 759,960 pounds left to account for...

- Phil

[Daevian]

:haha I take that back.....38 trucks. BUT! The admin. has destroy 40,000 trucks worth! WOOT! I find it funny someone said the oil fields were more important......which they probably will. The ministry of oil was practically the only guarded buildings in the entire country.

[bseitz]

Saddam disbursed everything he could thourghout the country before the invasion. They knew it couldn't be secured so it should have been destroyed. No excuses. Hopefully they'll drop a few 2 thousand pound bombs on every other known dump in the country.

[Matt]

http://drudgereport.com/nbcw.htm

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON OCT 25 2004 22:45:05 ET XXXXX

NBCNEWS: HUGE CACHE OF EXPLOSIVES VANISHED FROM SITE IN IRAQ -- AT LEAST 18 MONTHS AGO -- BEFORE TROOPS ARRIVED

The NYTIMES urgently reported on Monday how the Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives are now missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

Jumping on the TIMES exclusive, Dem presidential candidate John Kerry blasted the Bush administration for its failure to "guard those stockpiles."

"This is one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the great blunders of this administration," Kerry said.

In an election week rush:

**ABCNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 4 Times
**CBSNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 7 Times
**MSNBC Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 37 Times
**CNN Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 50 Times

But tonight, NBCNEWS reported, once: The 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives were already missing back in April 10, 2003 -- when U.S. troops arrived at the installation south of Baghdad!

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 HMX and RDX explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.

It is not clear why the NYTIMES failed to report the cache had been missing for 18 months -- and was reportedly missing before troops even arrived.

"The U.S. Army was at the sight one day after the liberation and the weapons were already gone," a top Republican blasted from Washington late Monday.

The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003 when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers.

Developing...




Oops.

[pedelen99]

That's a change from what the AP reported:

"At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said US-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. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity."

Drudge does not list a link to any NBC News report. A check of NBC News doesn't show any links to the story, but I don't know what their delay time is.

- Phil

[Matt]

http://drudgereport.com/nbcw6.htm

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE OCT 26 2004 11:02:38 ET XXXXX

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 crises 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.

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.

Developing...




Oops. Again.

[sliver108]

and our poor troops......they only takes orders from above :-(.

[Dancing Ants]

the weapons were gone before we got there on April 10, 2003. CBS News and the NY Times. "The October Surprise", they call it.

who was in there before we were? who knew this weapons dump was there? who was there when the Iraqis moved these weapons? The UN weapons inspectors that MOST of you think should have stayed in Iraq to finish their job

[bdb23]

the weapons were gone before we got there on April 10, 2003. CBS News and the NY Times. "The October Surprise", they call it.

who was in there before we were? who knew this weapons dump was there? who was there when the Iraqis moved these weapons? The UN weapons inspectors that MOST of you think should have stayed in Iraq to finish their job
:thumbsup Also, it's funny that Kerry had this information 17 days before the NYT broke the story...

From the 10/8/04 Debate: "The president did not do what was necessary. Didn't bring in enough nation. Didn't deliver the help. Didn't close off the borders. Didn't even guard the ammo dumps. And now our kids are being killed with ammos right out of that dump."

Looks like the "leak" from the UN hit Kerry even before the liberal media. :rolleyes:

[bdb23]

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp

[crosscg]

Here's another tough one for Bush...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/international/middleeast/27iraqcnd11.html

Allawi Faults U.S.-Led Forces on Execution of Iraqi Soldiers
By EDWARD WONG

Published: October 26, 2004


AGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 26 - Prime Minister Ayad Allawi partly blamed the American-led military forces on Tuesday for the massacre by insurgents of 49 freshly trained Iraqi soldiers on Saturday, saying the military had shown "major negligence."

In a speech before the interim National Assembly, the prime minister said a committee he had assembled had begun investigating the ambush, the deadliest of the guerrilla war. The assault took place on Saturday night in remote eastern Iraq, as three minibuses of unarmed Iraqi National Guardsmen were heading south for the soldiers' leave. Guerrillas dressed as police officers waylaid the travelers at a fake checkpoint, killed all 49 soldiers and their 3 civilian drivers, mostly with shots to their heads, police officials said. The vehicles were burned.

Advertisement


"I think there was major negligence by the multinational forces," Dr. Allawi said before the 100-member assembly. "It was a way to damage Iraq and the Iraqi people."

The relentless assaults on Iraqi security forces continued, as a militant group called the Army of Ansar al-Sunna posted Internet photos showing that it had captured 11 Iraqi guardsmen. A message on the Web site said the insurgents had captured the "infidels" of the "crusaders' militia" on a road between Baghdad and Hilla, about 50 miles south, where the guardsmen were apparently out on patrol. In the photos, the guardsmen sit at the feet of three armed guerillas.

The kidnappings and the massacre on Saturday revealed the weak state of the Iraqi security forces, despite President Bush's assertion that local police officers and soldiers will soon be able to take over security duties from 138,000 American troops. An Iraqi national security aide said on Monday that up to 5 percent of the Iraqi forces might be infiltrated by insurgents, and American troops say the police and national guardsmen are worthless or working with insurgents. Reporters also frequently encounter Iraqi security officers who say they are ready to take up arms against the occupation forces.

Prime Minister Allawi's razor words before the National Assembly marked the first time he has publicly criticized the American-led forces, and revealed his profound frustration at the assault and quite possibly at the deteriorating security situation in the country. He did not elaborate on his criticism. He added that he expected attacks to rise as Iraq moved toward general elections scheduled for January.

The ambushed guardsmen had just finished basic training at an American-run base in Kirkush, and it was unclear why they were traveling without any arms or other protection, especially given the frequent attacks on Iraqi security forces. The guerrillas who staged the ambush likely had inside information on the movements of the soldiers, Iraqi defense officials have said.

The First Infantry Division, which is charged with controlling restive Diyala Province, where the assault took place, did not return an e-mail request seeking comment on Dr. Allawi's accusation. The office of Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who is overseeing the recruiting and training of the Iraqi security forces, also did not return a similar request.

The interior minister, Falah al-Naqib, also appeared before the National Assembly and said that the government was starting to filter out police officers whom it deemed to be bad.

"Some of them are lazy," he said. "They came just for the sake of making a salary or earning a living. We have a real unemployment problem."

If the men are turned away from these jobs or fired, he said, then insurgents will recruit them and pay them an even higher salary.

In interviews, police officers almost invariably cite the lack of jobs as the main reason why they chose to join the Iraqi security forces, despite the dangers. The nationwide unemployment rate is an estimated 60 percent. The average police officer makes more than $220 a month, a solid middle-class income in this society.

Several prominent arrests recently have revealed potential high-ranking corruption among the security forces. Last month, the First Infantry Division arrested a commander of the Iraqi National Guard in Diyala Province, where the massacre took place, saying he had ties with the insurgency. In August, marines arrested the police chief of Anbar Province, which includes the volatile cities of Falluja and Ramadi, on charges of corruption.

[Davenumber40]

http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/nytrogate.html

This is a conservative site but you can click on the video to watch the NBC news story on this. Obviously it isn't as cut an dry as you all would like it to be. According to the journalists who were embedded with these troops, the explosives were gone when they showed up.

[marco j]

i love how people try and "pluck " what they want out of articles to make an argument work for them!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.explosives/index.html

read a few lines carefully and it's obvious.

But NBC reporter Lai Ling Jew told the network's cable arm, MSNBC, that the 24-hour visit by elements of the 101st Airborne Division was "more of a pit stop."

U.S. troops did not conduct a detailed search of the compound nor did they try to prevent looting, she said.


they never secured the spot.

end of story.

fire bush

[pedelen99]

The Drudge report and CNN News reports were based on NBC News. NBC has now withdrawn it's story claiming the weapons were gone when US troops arrived April 10th. The NBC reporter with the troops described the stop as a 'pit stop' and said there was no attempt to search for weapons.

- Phil

[Jake]

The Drudge report and CNN News reports were based on NBC News. NBC has now withdrawn it's story claiming the weapons were gone when US troops arrived April 10th. The NBC reporter with the troops described the stop as a 'pit stop' and said there was no attempt to search for weapons.

- Phil


that's not what he said at 1st.


he said that they secured the facility, but then moved on.


Obviously, the weapons were moved out before the US troops arrived.


UNLESS!!!!!


you believe that the insurgents got 38 trucks (yes, 38) to haul all that material out of there, unseen by anyone.



lets flashback to the March 2003 reports of trucks traveling into Syria from Iraq. You don't suppose....


no, lets ignore the obvious, and blame Bush. :rolleyes:

[bdb23]

that's not what he said at 1st.


he said that they secured the facility, but then moved on.


Obviously, the weapons were moved out before the US troops arrived.


UNLESS!!!!!


you believe that the insurgents got 38 trucks (yes, 38) to haul all that material out of there, unseen by anyone.



lets flashback to the March 2003 reports of trucks traveling into Syria from Iraq. You don't suppose....


no, lets ignore the obvious, and blame Bush. :rolleyes:
:thumbsup I guess the 14 months of dicking around with the UN did so much good. Now I would assume Kerry would have wanted the U.S. to go in sooner to protect this material. :rolleyes:

[Dancing Ants]

:thumbsup I guess the 14 months of dicking around with the UN did so much good. Now I would assume Kerry would have wanted the U.S. to go in sooner to protect this material. :rolleyes:

naturally.

[bdb23]

naturally.
If it's the headline in the NYT tomorrow, I'm sure Kerry will be preaching it.

[Dancing Ants]

If it's the headline in the NYT tomorrow, I'm sure Kerry will be preaching it.


he's already preached about it. http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/

[pedelen99]

Despite Wingerdom insisting on a vast New York Times-CBS-IAEA international anti-Bush conspiracy, the facts remain as follows:

- IAEA confirmed the explosives were in place on March 8

- Iraq recently reported to the IAEA that the exploses were lost after April 9th due to the "theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security." (Note that Iraq is required by UN Sanction to report on the status of these materials every 6 months.)

- The IAEA passed that information along to the White House and to the UN Security Council.

- The White House and the DOD reported that they had just become aware of this in the past 10 days.

- The DOD then reported that the explosives were missing before the US Forces arrived, based on an NBC News report.

- NBC later said 'that's not what we said'

- The commander of first US troops at the site has stated that they did not search the site, and has also said that he did not have enough troops to secure the site.

- The NBC news reporter with the second group of troops at the site says that it was just a 'pit stop' and no one searched the site.

- There is no indication that any troops secured the site at any point in time. When David Kay arrived in mid-May he noted that the site had already been extensively looted.


So that leaves us with absolutely no evidence to contradict the original report, yet everybody posting here is just absolutely convinced that the explosives were gone before the US troops got there. Why is that?

- Phil

[bdb23]

So that leaves us with absolutely no evidence to contradict the original report, yet everybody posting here is just absolutely convinced that the explosives were gone before the US troops got there. Why is that?

- Phil
I love how now all newspaper and TV reports have to be proved false, especially if they deal with Bush. What happened to responsible journalism???

[marco j]

I love how now all newspaper and TV reports have to be proved false, especially if they deal with Bush. What happened to responsible journalism???


BULLSHIT!

you people are unbelievable! this report says very clearly they got there did a small look around and then left. they did NOT do a thorough search and no we are going to pay the price.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...ives/index.html

yeah this administration never does anything wrong :rolleyes:

[Jake]

BULLSHIT!

you people are unbelievable! this report says very clearly they got there did a small look around and then left. they did NOT do a thorough search and no we are going to pay the price.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...ives/index.html

yeah this administration never does anything wrong :rolleyes:


but 'you people' believe that a trained army would 'look around' a base and not notice all those weapons!!!

come now...

sadly, the media is winning its attempt to influence some people.

[marco j]

but 'you people' believe that a trained army would 'look around' a base and not notice all those weapons!!!

come now...

sadly, the media is winning its attempt to influence some people.


yeah jake it's the weapons inspectors fault! :rolleyes:

it states very clearly in the article that they stopped very shortly and then moved on.

what's so hard to figure out about that? i know it's hard to admit that they possibly didn't secure the place and keep troops there to protect it but it happened .

i know you like to skip these lines but they tell it all.......But NBC reporter Lai Ling Jew told the network's cable arm, MSNBC, that the 24-hour visit by elements of the 101st Airborne Division was "more of a pit stop."

U.S. troops did not conduct a detailed search of the compound nor did they try to prevent looting, she said.

yeah it's the media trying there hardest to slam bush. :rolleyes:

truth is he does it all on his own.

[sliver108]

There has been one problem after another in this war. Why is it so hard for some people to realize that the government makes mistakes. It just so happens that Bush is the head of it.

[marco j]

There has been one problem after another in this war. Why is it so hard for some people to realize that the government makes mistakes. It just so happens that Bush is the head of it.


i don't know it's all conspiracy theory's! :rolleyes:


yeah bush supporters ARE dumb

[Dancing Ants]

BULLSHIT!

you people are unbelievable! this report says very clearly they got there did a small look around and then left. they did NOT do a thorough search and no we are going to pay the price.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...ives/index.html

yeah this administration never does anything wrong :rolleyes:

uh...do you know how much 377tons of weapons is? ALOT. if you have to do a thorough search for it, it ain't there.

[bseitz]

Despite Wingerdom insisting on a vast New York Times-CBS-IAEA international anti-Bush conspiracy, the facts remain as follows:

- IAEA confirmed the explosives were in place on March 8

- Iraq recently reported to the IAEA that the exploses were lost after April 9th due to the "theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security." (Note that Iraq is required by UN Sanction to report on the status of these materials every 6 months.)

- The IAEA passed that information along to the White House and to the UN Security Council.

- The White House and the DOD reported that they had just become aware of this in the past 10 days.

- The DOD then reported that the explosives were missing before the US Forces arrived, based on an NBC News report.

- NBC later said 'that's not what we said'

- The commander of first US troops at the site has stated that they did not search the site, and has also said that he did not have enough troops to secure the site.

- The NBC news reporter with the second group of troops at the site says that it was just a 'pit stop' and no one searched the site.

- There is no indication that any troops secured the site at any point in time. When David Kay arrived in mid-May he noted that the site had already been extensively looted.


So that leaves us with absolutely no evidence to contradict the original report, yet everybody posting here is just absolutely convinced that the explosives were gone before the US troops got there. Why is that?

- Phil


"In May 2003, members of the Iraq Survey Group, the CIA-led weapons inspection team, began work at Al-Qaqaa. It conducted 25 inspections, which covered 37 large bunkers and more than 80 other buildings. No IAEA-tagged high-explosive material was found."


Beginning in March 2003, as troops moved north toward Baghdad, the highways were filled with convoys of troops and supplies and the roads in the area were being monitored by UAV's (Predators, Global Hawks, etc.) to protect the rear flank. Do you really believe that 38 trucks carrying 10 tons of high explosives each could sneek out of this facility?

Why do you suppose a year and a half old story is coming up now and why does Kerry leave the impression that this stuff was swiped yesterday?

[bdb23]

BULLSHIT!

you people are unbelievable! this report says very clearly they got there did a small look around and then left. they did NOT do a thorough search and no we are going to pay the price.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...ives/index.html

yeah this administration never does anything wrong :rolleyes:
Does it say that the explosives were still there when they arrived????

[pedelen99]

Does it say that the explosives were still there when they arrived????

The report from the Iraqi government to the IAEA says they were.

- Phil

[bdb23]

The report from the Iraqi government to the IAEA says they were.

- Phil
But the last time that the International Atomic Energy Agency saw the explosives was three months earlier in January of 2003. This is before the invasion of Iraq. Further, the IAEA is headed by the anti-American Mohammed ElBaradei. The US has been hard on him for missing the Libya nuclear weapons program and for weakness on the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Coincidence???

[pedelen99]

but 'you people' believe that a trained army would 'look around' a base and not notice all those weapons!!!

come now...

sadly, the media is winning its attempt to influence some people.

'Us people' actually listen to the people who were there. From CBS News:

"The commander of the first unit into the area told CBS he did not search it for explosives or secure it from looters. "We were still in a fight," he said. "our focus was killing bad guys." He added he would have needed four times more troops to search and secure all the ammo dumps he came across."

And from NBC News (from the second group of US troops at the site):

"AR: Was there a search at all underway or was, 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. "


Here's the sad part, Jake... you and others are desperately holding onto this belief that 'of course the soldiers searched the site!' even when the soldiers themselves say they didn't. The truth is in black and white in front of your eyes - people who were there saying they didn't search the site. And yet you cannot acknowledge that, and somehow it's a vast leftist media conspiracy.

- Phil

[pedelen99]

But the last time that the International Atomic Energy Agency saw the explosives was three months earlier in January of 2003. This is before the invasion of Iraq. Further, the IAEA is headed by the anti-American Mohammed ElBaradei. The US has been hard on him for missing the Libya nuclear weapons program and for weakness on the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Coincidence???

No. The IAEA was at the site again on March 8.

As to whether the IAEA is biased, keep in mind that this report came out because the Iraqi government filed it with the IAEA, which then made the information available to the US and the UN Security Council as it is required to do. The IAEA didn't start this, it was just following the mandate of the UN sanctions against Iraq.

There is much more evidence that the US government tried to get the Iraqis to delay the report until after the election than there is that the IAEA is involved in an anti-Bush campaign. If you want to sniff out a consipracy I'd suggest you start there.

- Phil

[pedelen99]

uh...do you know how much 377tons of weapons is? ALOT. if you have to do a thorough search for it, it ain't there.

uh... do you know that al Qaqaa is a massive facilty with 87 major buildings and up to 1100 individual bunkers and storage facilities spread over acres and acres?

- Phil

[bseitz]

No. The IAEA was at the site again on March 8.

As to whether the IAEA is biased, keep in mind that this report came out because the Iraqi government filed it with the IAEA, which then made the information available to the US and the UN Security Council as it is required to do. The IAEA didn't start this, it was just following the mandate of the UN sanctions against Iraq.

There is much more evidence that the US government tried to get the Iraqis to delay the report until after the election than there is that the IAEA is involved in an anti-Bush campaign. If you want to sniff out a consipracy I'd suggest you start there.

- Phil

Didn't the invasion start on March 20?

[bseitz]

uh... do you know that al Qaqaa is a massive facilty with 87 major buildings and up to 1100 individual bunkers and storage facilities spread over acres and acres?

- Phil

One more time...

"In May 2003, members of the Iraq Survey Group, the CIA-led weapons inspection team, began work at Al-Qaqaa. It conducted 25 inspections, which covered 37 large bunkers and more than 80 other buildings. No IAEA-tagged high-explosive material was found."


Beginning in March 2003, as troops moved north toward Baghdad, the highways were filled with convoys of troops and supplies and the roads in the area were being monitored by UAV's (Predators, Global Hawks, etc.) to protect the rear flank. Do you really believe that 38 trucks carrying 10 tons of high explosives each could sneek out of this facility?

Why do you suppose a year and a half old story is coming up now and why does Kerry leave the impression that this stuff was swiped yesterday?

[bdb23]

One more time...

"In May 2003, members of the Iraq Survey Group, the CIA-led weapons inspection team, began work at Al-Qaqaa. It conducted 25 inspections, which covered 37 large bunkers and more than 80 other buildings. No IAEA-tagged high-explosive material was found."


Beginning in March 2003, as troops moved north toward Baghdad, the highways were filled with convoys of troops and supplies and the roads in the area were being monitored by UAV's (Predators, Global Hawks, etc.) to protect the rear flank. Do you really believe that 38 trucks carrying 10 tons of high explosives each could sneek out of this facility?

Why do you suppose a year and a half old story is coming up now and why does Kerry leave the impression that this stuff was swiped yesterday?
:thumbsup :thumbsup

[pedelen99]

One more time...

"In May 2003, members of the Iraq Survey Group, the CIA-led weapons inspection team, began work at Al-Qaqaa. It conducted 25 inspections, which covered 37 large bunkers and more than 80 other buildings. No IAEA-tagged high-explosive material was found."


Beginning in March 2003, as troops moved north toward Baghdad, the highways were filled with convoys of troops and supplies and the roads in the area were being monitored by UAV's (Predators, Global Hawks, etc.) to protect the rear flank. Do you really believe that 38 trucks carrying 10 tons of high explosives each could sneek out of this facility?

Why do you suppose a year and a half old story is coming up now and why does Kerry leave the impression that this stuff was swiped yesterday?

Yes, David Kay and his team was at al Qaqaa in mid May. If it is true the materials were missing at that point in time then they disappeared between March 8 and then. Kay has reported that the facility was heavily looted when he arrived, and that he believes the explosives were taken post-invasion.

Do I believe that 38 trucks with 380 tons of explosives could sneak out of this facility? I have to, because it happened. Your real question, I believe, is whether I think this happened before or after the invasion. I'm going to defer that answer to people who know more than I. From the LA Times:

"Given the size of the missing cache, it would have been difficult to relocate undetected before the invasion, when U.S. spy satellites were monitoring activity at sites suspected of concealing nuclear and biological weapons.
"You don't just move this stuff in the middle of the night," said a former U.S. intelligence official who worked in Baghdad."

Keep in mind that Kay also told the Times that the site "was heavily looted at that time. Sometime between April and May, most of the stuff was carried off. The site was in total disarray, just like a lot of the Iraqi sites."

Finally, you asked why this was coming up now. I've answered this. Because the Iraqi government finally reported the stuff missing to the IAEA. Now, if as you assert, the administration knew in May (when Kay was there) that the stuff was missing, then why is it just coming out now? The CPA, which was running Iraq at the time, had an obligation to report any changes in the status of these materials. That obligation comes from the UN sanctions against Iraq.

I don't get the perception that Kerry is saying this just happened, but on the other hand I'm fairly well informed on the subject so I may just be missing that spin. It would help if the administration would be a little more forthcoming about the time frame that this actually happened, instead of floating out conflicting and changing stories.

- Phil

[pedelen99]

"In May 2003, members of the Iraq Survey Group, the CIA-led weapons inspection team, began work at Al-Qaqaa. It conducted 25 inspections, which covered 37 large bunkers and more than 80 other buildings. No IAEA-tagged high-explosive material was found."


By the way, what's the source of this quote? I googled it and found no matches...

- Phil

[bdb23]

Bush at rally in Pennsylvania:

"After repeatedly calling Iraq the wrong war, and a diversion, Senator Kerry this week seemed shocked to learn that Iraq is a dangerous place, full of dangerous weapons..."

"If Senator Kerry had his way... Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would control those all of those weapons and explosives and could share them with his terrorist friends. Now the senator is making wild charges about missing explosives, when his top foreign policy adviser admits, quote, 'We do not know the facts.' Think about that: The senator is denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts..."

"Our military is now investigating a number of possible scenarios, including that the explosives may have been moved before our troops even arrived at the site. This investigation is important and it's ongoing. And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief."

[Rob]

Woah! Bush put down Kerry at one of his rallies? Why wasn't Sportscenter pre-empted??

If Bush's mouth is your source for any information at all, I pity you.

[bdb23]

Woah! Bush put down Kerry at one of his rallies? Why wasn't Sportscenter pre-empted??

If Bush's mouth is your source for any information at all, I pity you.
It's not a source of information. Just something other than Kerry quoting the NYT or CBS (neither of which can tell us when the stuff went missing).

[bseitz]

Yes, David Kay and his team was at al Qaqaa in mid May. If it is true the materials were missing at that point in time then they disappeared between March 8 and then. Kay has reported that the facility was heavily looted when he arrived, and that he believes the explosives were taken post-invasion.
Did he happen to give any reasons for this belief?


Do I believe that 38 trucks with 380 tons of explosives could sneak out of this facility? I have to, because it happened. Your real question, I believe, is whether I think this happened before or after the invasion. I'm going to defer that answer to people who know more than I. From the LA Times:

"Given the size of the missing cache, it would have been difficult to relocate undetected before the invasion, when U.S. spy satellites were monitoring activity at sites suspected of concealing nuclear and biological weapons.
"You don't just move this stuff in the middle of the night," said a former U.S. intelligence official who worked in Baghdad."

And I suppose it would be much easier after the invasion when the place was crawling with troops and Predators? You may want to reconsider to whom you defer for your opinion. :rolleyes:


Keep in mind that Kay also told the Times that the site "was heavily looted at that time. Sometime between April and May, most of the stuff was carried off. The site was in total disarray, just like a lot of the Iraqi sites."
If he got there in mid-May, how would he have any idea when the stuff was carried off, except that it must have been before mid-May? Psychic I guess.


Finally, you asked why this was coming up now. I've answered this. Because the Iraqi government finally reported the stuff missing to the IAEA. Now, if as you assert, the administration knew in May (when Kay was there) that the stuff was missing, then why is it just coming out now? The CPA, which was running Iraq at the time, had an obligation to report any changes in the status of these materials. That obligation comes from the UN sanctions against Iraq.
Why didn't David Kay notify them? Oh, I guess it wasn't his responsibility to report something so insignificant.


I don't get the perception that Kerry is saying this just happened, but on the other hand I'm fairly well informed on the subject so I may just be missing that spin. It would help if the administration would be a little more forthcoming about the time frame that this actually happened, instead of floating out conflicting and changing stories.
I'm fairly well informed as well, and as you see from my first post on this thread, I thought it was a recent occurrence. Kerry certainly didn't add any time context when he spoke about it.

A little common sense goes a LONG way...

[bdb23]

Did he happen to give any reasons for this belief?



And I suppose it would be much easier after the invasion when the place was crawling with troops and Predators? You may want to reconsider to whom you defer for your opinion. :rolleyes:



If he got there in mid-May, how would he have any idea when the stuff was carried off, except that it must have been before mid-May? Psychic I guess.



Why didn't David Kay notify them? Oh, I guess it wasn't his responsibility to report something so insignificant.



I'm fairly well informed as well, and as you see from my first post on this thread, I thought it was a recent occurrence. Kerry certainly didn't add any time context when he spoke about it.

A little common sense goes a LONG way...
:thumbsup Very well put. http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,136745,00.html... still no evidence that the stuff was there when we first got there.

[ss10mets]

:thumbsup Very well put. http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,136745,00.html... still no evidence that the stuff was there when we first got there.

fox news...

[bdb23]

fox news...
Same could be said for NYT. It still has specific quotes from those involved rather than just unsupported assertions and insinuations that this is something that happened recently.

[bseitz]

fox news...
As opposed to NYT (Jason Blair's former employer), Dan Rather (how many time is this idiot going to embarass himself), CNN (remember Tailwind?)... :rolleyes:

[Dancing Ants]

uh... do you know that al Qaqaa is a massive facilty with 87 major buildings and up to 1100 individual bunkers and storage facilities spread over acres and acres?

- Phil

yes.

[pedelen99]

It's not a source of information. Just something other than Kerry quoting the NYT or CBS (neither of which can tell us when the stuff went missing).

The Iraqi government (which we installed) has, however, stated when the materials went missing. Sometime after April 9th.

- Phil

[jrock5730]

Bush at rally in Pennsylvania:

"After repeatedly calling Iraq the wrong war, and a diversion, Senator Kerry this week seemed shocked to learn that Iraq is a dangerous place, full of dangerous weapons..."

"If Senator Kerry had his way... Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would control those all of those weapons and explosives and could share them with his terrorist friends. Now the senator is making wild charges about missing explosives, when his top foreign policy adviser admits, quote, 'We do not know the facts.' Think about that: The senator is denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts..."

"Our military is now investigating a number of possible scenarios, including that the explosives may have been moved before our troops even arrived at the site. This investigation is important and it's ongoing. And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief."

I think its hilarious when Bush says Saddamm's terrorist friends. Its also really funny that Bush talks about Kerry doing things without knowing the facts, when thats exactly what we did when we went to war with Iraq. Some commander in chief.

[bdb23]

when thats exactly what we did when we went to war with Iraq
Is this the same war that Kerry voted for???

[jrock5730]

Is this the same war that Kerry voted for???

Yeah, it is the same war he was lied to about as well, but atleast when we found out we were lied to, we stood up and said something about it, unlike Bush and his cronies.

[bdb23]

Yeah, it is the same war he was lied to about as well, but atleast when we found out we were lied to, we stood up and said something about it, unlike Bush and his cronies.
Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committe for 8 years. I guess he must not have seen the "evidence" b/c he must have been absent that day... http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241

[jrock5730]

Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committe for 8 years. I guess he must not have seen the "evidence" b/c he must have been absent that day... http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241

I wonder exactly what they talk about at "public meetings". Give me a break man, these meetings are not mandatory, so whatever. While I agree it would not have hurt him to be at more of these meetings, it changes nothing for me.

[bdb23]

I wonder exactly what they talk about at "public meetings". Give me a break man, these meetings are not mandatory, so whatever. While I agree it would not have hurt him to be at more of these meetings, it changes nothing for me.
I figured this response would be coming. :rolleyes:

[pedelen99]

Bush at rally in Pennsylvania:

"Our military is now investigating a number of possible scenarios, including that the explosives may have been moved before our troops even arrived at the site. This investigation is important and it's ongoing. And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief."

When the story first broke Scott McClellan (White House spokesman) said
that "the Pentagon, upon learning of [the disappearance of the explosives], directed the multinational forces and the Iraqi Survey Group to look into this matter, and that's what they are currently doing."

CBS has subsequently talked to the Chief of the Iraq Survey Group, Charlie Duelfer, in Baghdad and he says he hasn't gotten any order like that.

Wonder what Bush thinks of a political candidate who doesn't even look for facts (while claiming that he is).

- Phil

[GreenJester]

You know, I almost wonder why Republicans would actually want to keep Bush in office. He's not doing anything to improve their image. And a tired old party like that which won't change with the times anyway... the Republicans need all the positive press they can get.

[bseitz]

The Iraqi government (which we installed) has, however, stated when the materials went missing. Sometime after April 9th.

- Phil
"The Iraqi letter said the material disappeared "due to lack of security" of government installations during the looting that followed the fall of dictator Saddam Hussein's regime in April 2003." - CNN

The Iraqi Government has yet to provide any explanation for how they know the materials were present before the fall of Baghdad (which I assume is where you got April 9th) or why they think the material was removed afterward. They're going to be pressed on this very soon and it'll be interesting to see how they respond.


"The IAEA said Tuesday the last time it can vouch for the presence of the explosives at Al Qaqaa was in March 2003, before the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam." - CNN

You may want to let this one go. It looks like this could get real ugly, real soon.

[pedelen99]

New information - now we know why the Iraqi government is saying that the explosives were stolen after April 9th. This from AFP:

Mohammed al-Sharaa, who heads the science ministry's site monitoring department said that "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."

He also said officials at Al-Qaqaa, including its general director, whom he refused to name, made contact with US troops before the fall in an effort to get them to provide security for the site."

- Phil

[jrock5730]

I figured this response would be coming. :rolleyes:

Think about it man, what would they possibly talk about in a "public" intelligence meeting? Probably not the same things they talk about in closed doors meetings I imagine. Bush talks about our intelligence being our business, and people don't need to know how we collect intelligence, but yet he's critical of someone for missing "public" intelligence meetings.

[bdb23]

New information - now we know why the Iraqi government is saying that the explosives were stolen after April 9th. This from AFP:

Mohammed al-Sharaa, who heads the science ministry's site monitoring department said that "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."

He also said officials at Al-Qaqaa, including its general director, whom he refused to name, made contact with US troops before the fall in an effort to get them to provide security for the site."

- Phil
Funny that no one ran in to these "officials" at Al-Qaqaa during the "pit stop" on the way to Baghdad, but they can be certain that nothing left the site. :confused: :rolleyes:

[bdb23]

Think about it man, what would they possibly talk about in a "public" intelligence meeting? Probably not the same things they talk about in closed doors meetings I imagine. Bush talks about our intelligence being our business, and people don't need to know how we collect intelligence, but yet he's critical of someone for missing "public" intelligence meetings.
Then why doesn't Kerry make his "closed meeting" attendance record public?? He was given the chance to request this but refused.

[bseitz]

You know, I almost wonder why Republicans would actually want to keep Bush in office. He's not doing anything to improve their image. And a tired old party like that which won't change with the times anyway... the Republicans need all the positive press they can get.
We're just a bunch of thick-headed Neaderthals, remember? It's amazing that the Executive Branch, both Houses of Congress, most Governorships, and (I believe) most State Legislatures are controlled by Neaderthals. :monkey

[pedelen99]

Funny that no one ran in to these "officials" at Al-Qaqaa during the "pit stop" on the way to Baghdad, but they can be certain that nothing left the site. :confused: :rolleyes:

That may explain the April 9th date cited by the Iraqi government. The second round of troops came by April 10th... if those officials had bailed the day before then the dates would match up. Otherwise April 9 is an odd date to throw out.

So someone explain to me, why in the face of all evidence to the contrary and no evidence to support your position, you all refuse to accept that 380 tons of explosives were looted. Is the truth really all that hard to face?

- Phil

[bseitz]

New information - now we know why the Iraqi government is saying that the explosives were stolen after April 9th. This from AFP:

Mohammed al-Sharaa, who heads the science ministry's site monitoring department said that "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."

He also said officials at Al-Qaqaa, including its general director, whom he refused to name, made contact with US troops before the fall in an effort to get them to provide security for the site."

- Phil
Wouldn't look good if it got swiped out from under their noses, now would it? Or if maybe they got paid off to look the other way. Not convincing in the least. And how, pray tell, did all of these trucks manage to avoid detection?

[bdb23]

That may explain the April 9th date cited by the Iraqi government. The second round of troops came by April 10th... if those officials had bailed the day before then the dates would match up. Otherwise April 9 is an odd date to throw out.

So someone explain to me, why in the face of all evidence to the contrary and no evidence to support your position, you all refuse to accept that 380 tons of explosives were looted. Is the truth really all that hard to face?

- Phil
I don't think anyone is denying they were looted. It's the fact that no one (including the NYT) has put a date on when this occurred. All they have done is tried to insinuate that it happened while US troops were watching in order to effect the outcome of the election. It's basic journalism that the NYT failed to conduct and the reason that CBS chose to drop the story from its 10/31 60 Minutes.

[bseitz]

That may explain the April 9th date cited by the Iraqi government. The second round of troops came by April 10th... if those officials had bailed the day before then the dates would match up. Otherwise April 9 is an odd date to throw out.

So someone explain to me, why in the face of all evidence to the contrary and no evidence to support your position, you all refuse to accept that 380 tons of explosives were looted. Is the truth really all that hard to face?

- Phil
No one is disputing that it was looted. Common sense indicates that it would have been much easier to do it before troops arrived than after. Is the truth really all that hard to face?

[bdb23]

Is the truth really all that hard to face?
It's tough for Kerry and the liberal media to retreat on a story that they thought was going to get Kerry over the hump with respect to Bush being viewed as stronger when it comes to war/foreign policy. I don't blame them, but Kerry needs to learn to quit jumping on every damn headline that comes out of the NYT. Foolish.

[pedelen99]

Wouldn't look good if it got swiped out from under their noses, now would it? Or if maybe they got paid off to look the other way. Not convincing in the least. And how, pray tell, did all of these trucks manage to avoid detection?

That's the point of the LA Times article... before the invasion, it would have been virtually impossible for those trucks to escape detection.

Afterwards, both you and I apparently share the same view - it would have been incredibly incompetent to allow that many trucks to move in and out of a major ammo dump. Here's where we differ - in the face of facts clearing indicating that is indeed what did happen, you cling to your belief that it couldn't have... with no more evidence than the fact that you would have to rethink some political values that you hold so dearly.

- Phil

[pedelen99]

No one is disputing that it was looted. Common sense indicates that it would have been much easier to do it before troops arrived than after. Is the truth really all that hard to face?

My point exactly. In the face of all the evidence that points to the fact that the depot was looted AFTER we took over... is the truth really all that hard to face?

- Phil

[bdb23]

in the face of facts clearing indicating that is indeed what did happen
I'm still waiting for these "facts". I guess you subscribe to the school of thought of "if it possibly wasn't A, then it most certainly must be B." Do you honestly believe that things weren't moved around before we got in there??? It was happening daily.

[bseitz]

That's the point of the LA Times article... before the invasion, it would have been virtually impossible for those trucks to escape detection.
After the invasion, there was more surveillance to protect the supply lines, so it would have been more likely that they'd have been detected. Is that really so difficult to comprehend?


Afterwards, both you and I apparently share the same view - it would have been incredibly incompetent to allow that many trucks to move in and out of a major ammo dump.
Finally, a moment of sanity!


Here's where we differ - in the face of facts clearing indicating that is indeed what did happen, you cling to your belief that it couldn't have... with no more evidence than the fact that you would have to rethink some political values that you hold so dearly
I knew it couldn't last. The facts clearly indicate the opposite; it's more likely that it was removed before the invasion than after. I'll ignore the condescending postscript to your reply. I really don't expect any better.

[pedelen99]

I'm still waiting for these "facts". I guess you subscribe to the school of thought of "if it possibly wasn't A, then it most certainly must be B." Do you honestly believe that things weren't moved around before we got in there??? It was happening daily.

Happening daily? Do you want to offer some support for that assertion?

Here's the evidence that says the explosives were there:

- The IAEA says they were there either May 8 or May 15. (I've seen differing dates)

- The Iraqi government says they were, and were looted after April 9. They apparently have certified statements to that effect from officials who were there.

- American experts have said that they find this time frame more believable than the 'missing before we got there' time fram.

Now, I'm not saying it's impossible that the Iraqis are wrong. But if you want to prove them wrong, then offer up some proof. Real proof. Not conjecture. Not 'common sense' that contradicts the opinion of experts. Not conspiracy theories. It's all about reality, not what you want reality to be.

- Phil

[GreenJester]

We're just a bunch of thick-headed Neaderthals, remember? It's amazing that the Executive Branch, both Houses of Congress, most Governorships, and (I believe) most State Legislatures are controlled by Neaderthals. :monkey
Not really so amazing. :)

If human history has one common thread, it's stupid people taking power and doing stupid things.

Ignorance is easier than intelligence. That's why more people choose it. So when you appeal to the slow-minded, you get more votes.

This is the flaw in democracy.

A conscientious politician shouldn't appeal to the stupidity and ignorance in people as a way to get votes, but since most of America is made of people who lean towards narrow- and backward-mindedness, you *have* to pander to these people if you want to win an office.

It's a vicious circle. We can only hope that a candidate will do what's necessary to win the votes of the ignorant masses, and yet do the right and intelligent things when he/she gets into office.

It's not pretty but that is the reality of human society.

[bseitz]

Here's the evidence that says the explosives were there:

- The IAEA says they were there either May 8 or May 15. (I've seen differing dates)
"The IAEA said Tuesday the last time it can vouch for the presence of the explosives at Al Qaqaa was in March 2003, before the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam." - CNN


- The Iraqi government says they were, and were looted after April 9. They apparently have certified statements to that effect from officials who were there.
Oooo. Certified statements. I guess that seals it. I'm sure they'd have all stood right up and admitted it was stolen while they were in charge. :rolleyes:


- American experts have said that they find this time frame more believable than the 'missing before we got there' time fram.
Which American experts? David Kaye?


Now, I'm not saying it's impossible that the Iraqis are wrong. But if you want to prove them wrong, then offer up some proof. Real proof. Not conjecture. Not 'common sense' that contradicts the opinion of experts. Not conspiracy theories. It's all about reality, not what you want reality to be.
The "proof" you've offered up has been some pretty thin gruel up to this point, all of which has been taken apart repeatedly. Nothing but conjecture, which doesn't stand up to the slightest examination. The Iraqi's haven't provided anything even resembling proof; just the testimony of people who have a powerful incentive to tell the story they're telling. But that's your story and it looks like your sticking to it.

[bseitz]

Not really so amazing. :)

If human history has one common thread, it's stupid people taking power and doing stupid things.

Ignorance is easier than intelligence. That's why more people choose it. So when you appeal to the slow-minded, you get more votes.

This is the flaw in democracy.

A conscientious politician shouldn't appeal to the stupidity and ignorance in people as a way to get votes, but since most of America is made of people who lean towards narrow- and backward-mindedness, you *have* to pander to these people if you want to win an office.

It's a vicious circle. We can only hope that a candidate will do what's necessary to win the votes of the ignorant masses, and yet do the right and intelligent things when he/she gets into office.

It's not pretty but that is the reality of human society.
Look how well things turned out when geniuses like Lenin and Mao took over. I'll stick with the Neanderthals, thank you.

[pedelen99]

"The IAEA said Tuesday the last time it can vouch for the presence of the explosives at Al Qaqaa was in March 2003, before the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam." - CNN

I mis-typed when I wrote May - thanks for catching that. Meant March.

From the Fox News link posted earlier in this thread:

"The explosives at Al-Qaqaa had been housed in storage bunkers at the facility. U.N. nuclear inspectors placed fresh seals over the bunker doors in January 2003. The inspectors visited Al-Qaqaa for the last time on March 15, 2003, and reported that the seals were not broken; therefore, the weapons were still there at the time. The team then pulled out of the country in advance of the invasion."

However, I have seen March 8th also listed as the re-visit date... but no question they were there in March.

(I love using Fox News as a source :) )

- Phil

[GreenJester]

Look how well things turned out when geniuses like Lenin and Mao took over. I'll stick with the Neanderthals, thank you.Oh yeah, they were REAL rational, reasonable people.

Once again you think too simply. You can be stupid and kind, or stupid and cruel. You can also be intelligent and kind, or intelligent and cruel.

Think of all the geniuses who have had a hand in keeping you alive today alone. Then mock intelligence.


EDIT: I'll add that Bush is stupid but basically kind (I think). Nevertheless, it's not enough to lead a nation.

[bseitz]

Oh yeah, they were REAL rational, reasonable people.

Once again you think too simply. You can be stupid and kind, or stupid and cruel. You can also be intelligent and kind, or intelligent and cruel.

Think of all the geniuses who have had a hand in keeping you alive today alone. Then mock intelligence.
OK, let's look at our rational and reasonable friends in Europe. Unemployment is hovering around 10% for much of Europe. Or is it simple thinking that leads one to notice the fact that where the intelligencia feel emboldened to lord over the proletariat, things usually turn out very badly? And I don't mock intelligence, but I certainly don't put it at the top of the list attributes that make a person a good citizen, which ultimately determines what type of society one lives in. In the last century there were many cases where smart people caused more harm than good.


EDIT: I'll add that Bush is stupid but basically kind (I think). Nevertheless, it's not enough to lead a nation.
Where'd you go to school?

[Davenumber40]

But NBC reporter Lai Ling Jew told the network's cable arm, MSNBC, that the 24-hour visit by elements of the 101st Airborne Division was "more of a pit stop."

Staying at the facility for 24 hours is a pit stop?


they never secured the spot.

end of story.

fire bush

I think this proves some people are going to make up their minds regardless of the facts. NBC news originally reported the facility was secured. I'm sure if we elect John Kerry he'll secure the facilities himself. I mean he did say, "I will find and kill the terrorists."

[bseitz]

I mis-typed when I wrote May - thanks for catching that. Meant March.

From the Fox News link posted earlier in this thread:

"The explosives at Al-Qaqaa had been housed in storage bunkers at the facility. U.N. nuclear inspectors placed fresh seals over the bunker doors in January 2003. The inspectors visited Al-Qaqaa for the last time on March 15, 2003, and reported that the seals were not broken; therefore, the weapons were still there at the time. The team then pulled out of the country in advance of the invasion."

However, I have seen March 8th also listed as the re-visit date... but no question they were there in March.

(I love using Fox News as a source :) )

- Phil
Glad to be of service. Care to address any of the other points?

[Holla9]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

Timing of military explosives’ theft emerges as issue U.S. commander says it’s unlikely it occurred after 2003 U.S. invasion
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:06 p.m. ET Oct. 27, 2004

The infantry commander whose troops first captured the Iraqi weapons depot where 377 tons of explosives disappeared said Wednesday it is “very highly improbable” that someone could have trucked out so much material once U.S. forces arrived in the area.

Two major roads that pass near the sprawling Al-Qaqaa installation were filled with U.S. military traffic in the weeks after April 3, 2003, when U.S. troops first reached the area, said Col. Dave Perkins, who commanded the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, the division that led the charge into Baghdad.

While he and other military officials acknowledged that some looting at the site had taken place, he said a large-scale operation to remove the explosives using multi-ton trucks would almost certainly have been detected.

Perkins, now a staff officer at the Pentagon, was made available to reporters Wednesday by Defense Department spokesmen. He provided his account of his operations in Iraq in the middle of a furious exchange of accusations between the campaigns of President Bush and Sen. John Kerry over what happened to the missing explosives...

[bseitz]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

Timing of military explosives’ theft emerges as issue U.S. commander says it’s unlikely it occurred after 2003 U.S. invasion
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:06 p.m. ET Oct. 27, 2004

The infantry commander whose troops first captured the Iraqi weapons depot where 377 tons of explosives disappeared said Wednesday it is “very highly improbable” that someone could have trucked out so much material once U.S. forces arrived in the area.

Two major roads that pass near the sprawling Al-Qaqaa installation were filled with U.S. military traffic in the weeks after April 3, 2003, when U.S. troops first reached the area, said Col. Dave Perkins, who commanded the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, the division that led the charge into Baghdad.

While he and other military officials acknowledged that some looting at the site had taken place, he said a large-scale operation to remove the explosives using multi-ton trucks would almost certainly have been detected.

Perkins, now a staff officer at the Pentagon, was made available to reporters Wednesday by Defense Department spokesmen. He provided his account of his operations in Iraq in the middle of a furious exchange of accusations between the campaigns of President Bush and Sen. John Kerry over what happened to the missing explosives...
Impossible!!


- The Iraqi government says they were, and were looted after April 9. They apparently have certified statements to that effect from officials who were there.

There are certified statements!!!!

[bdb23]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

Timing of military explosives’ theft emerges as issue U.S. commander says it’s unlikely it occurred after 2003 U.S. invasion
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:06 p.m. ET Oct. 27, 2004

The infantry commander whose troops first captured the Iraqi weapons depot where 377 tons of explosives disappeared said Wednesday it is “very highly improbable” that someone could have trucked out so much material once U.S. forces arrived in the area.

Two major roads that pass near the sprawling Al-Qaqaa installation were filled with U.S. military traffic in the weeks after April 3, 2003, when U.S. troops first reached the area, said Col. Dave Perkins, who commanded the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, the division that led the charge into Baghdad.

While he and other military officials acknowledged that some looting at the site had taken place, he said a large-scale operation to remove the explosives using multi-ton trucks would almost certainly have been detected.

Perkins, now a staff officer at the Pentagon, was made available to reporters Wednesday by Defense Department spokesmen. He provided his account of his operations in Iraq in the middle of a furious exchange of accusations between the campaigns of President Bush and Sen. John Kerry over what happened to the missing explosives...
:thumbsup But I wouldn't expect Kerry to back down. He already looks like a fool and would look even worse by dropping the issue. The media, however, should run this part of the story just as much as they did on Monday.

[bseitz]

Put a fork in this thread.

[bdb23]

Put a fork in this thread.
:lol :thumbsup

[pedelen99]

Impossible!!

There are certified statements!!!!

And there is now video dated April 18 showing barrels of explosives labelled labeled Explosiv 1.1D. That category of explosive includes RDX - the explosive missing from al Qaqaa.

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=64

And there are pictures of unbroken IAEA seals as well.

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=64


Certified statements AND video. The explosives were under lock and key on April 18th.

Sorry to have intruded with actual evidence. You can commence with more sarcasm now.

- Phil

[bseitz]

And there is now video dated April 18 showing barrels of explosives labelled labeled Explosiv 1.1D. That category of explosive includes RDX - the explosive missing from al Qaqaa.

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=64

And there are pictures of unbroken IAEA seals as well.

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=64


Certified statements AND video. The explosives were under lock and key on April 18th.

Sorry to have intruded with actual evidence. You can commence with more sarcasm now.

- Phil

Channel 5 in Minneapolis? :rolleyes:


Try this one:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136897,00.html


The Defense Department is analyzing satellite photos of an Iraqi military facility taken before the U.S.-led war in 2003 to determine what happened to tons of explosives.
The photos show 'large truck activity' at the Al-Qaqaa (search) installation south of Baghdad, according to military officials, who hope to have the images declassified so they can be released.
Doesn't this make a little more sense than believing that this stuff was trucked out amid the convoys of troops and supplies following the invasion?


The January 2003 IAEA action report noted that the explosives were stored in nine different bunkers at Al-Qaqaa. Each of the bunkers was locked and marked with IAEA tags and seals on them.
But the report also included a warning. 'Of note was that the sealing on the bunkers was only partially effective because each bunker had ventilation shafts on the sides of the buildings. These shafts were not sealed, and could provide removal routes for the HMX while leaving the front door locked,' it said.
So much for "under lock and key"


You can continue to hope against hope that our troops allowed this stuff to be stolen, but a little common sense says it's highly unlikely. I'm not sure why Kerry would insist on belittling the troops that detest him anyway. How would an operational issue like this have anything to to with the President anyway? I guess the Bush-haters' psychosis has made them grasp at anything. You guys are going to be suicidal next week.

[pedelen99]

Channel 5 in Minneapolis? :rolleyes:


The news crew imbedded with the 101st that took the video was from KSTP-TV... Channel 5 in Minneapolis. Their tape, their story.

- Phil

[pedelen99]

Doesn't this make a little more sense than believing that this stuff was trucked out amid the convoys of troops and supplies following the invasion?


This makes absolute sense... except, of course, for the video showing it was there on April 18th. And, of course, that the TV reporters noted that their were Iraqis driving around in a pick-up truck at that point in time.

Some other very interesting points from the Fox News article:

"I think we're going to have to wait until the Iraqi Survey Group, the group that looks into these kinds of things, can actually get to the facts," Powell told Bill Bennett on his "Morning in America" radio show, "The facts are really kind of muddled right now and we are just going to have to try to do the best we can in the very near future to get the ground truth out."

Also, Scott McClellan earlier said that "the Pentagon, upon learning of [the disappearance of the explosives], directed the multinational forces and the Iraqi Survey Group to look into this matter, and that's what they are currently doing."

Oddly enough, CBS then talked to the Chief of the Iraq Survey Group, Charlie Duelfer, in Baghdad and he says he hasn't gotten any instructions to look into it.

- Phil

[pedelen99]

You can continue to hope against hope that our troops allowed this stuff to be stolen, but a little common sense says it's highly unlikely. I'm not sure why Kerry would insist on belittling the troops that detest him anyway. How would an operational issue like this have anything to to with the President anyway? I guess the Bush-haters' psychosis has made them grasp at anything. You guys are going to be suicidal next week.

I'm hoping that the stuff wasn't stolen, but there's pretty much no question that it was.

Our troops didn't allow this to be stolen. Our leaders did. The troops did what they were ordered to do, and no one ordered them to secure this or almost any other facility. Kerry is not belittling the troops (as an aside, Guliani is, but that's another story).

This one one concrete example of a massive failure in leadership - a failure to plan and to execute. We went into Iraq to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, yet it appears that what we did was just facilitate that transfer. Al Qaqaa was not the only place left unguarded. In fact, just about every place was left unguarded. I'll post some more quotes after this.

- Phil

[bseitz]

This makes absolute sense... except, of course, for the video showing it was there on April 18th. And, of course, that the TV reporters noted that their were Iraqis driving around in a pick-up truck at that point in time.

Some other very interesting points from the Fox News article:

"I think we're going to have to wait until the Iraqi Survey Group, the group that looks into these kinds of things, can actually get to the facts," Powell told Bill Bennett on his "Morning in America" radio show, "The facts are really kind of muddled right now and we are just going to have to try to do the best we can in the very near future to get the ground truth out."

Also, Scott McClellan earlier said that "the Pentagon, upon learning of [the disappearance of the explosives], directed the multinational forces and the Iraqi Survey Group to look into this matter, and that's what they are currently doing."

Oddly enough, CBS then talked to the Chief of the Iraq Survey Group, Charlie Duelfer, in Baghdad and he says he hasn't gotten any instructions to look into it.

- Phil

That pickup truck must have made a WHOLE BUNCH of runs!! :BANG

[pedelen99]

From the Chicago Tribune:

The insurgents probably are using weapons and ammunition looted from the nearby Qa-Qaa complex, a 3-mile by 3-mile weapons-storage facility about 25 miles southwest of Baghdad, said Maj. Brian Neil, operations officer for the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, which initially patrolled the area.

The facility was bombed during last year's invasion and then left unguarded, Neil said. "There's definitely no shortage of weapons around here," he said.


http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/world/9849036.htm

- Phil

[pedelen99]

from Peter Galbraith in the Boston Globe:

In 2003 I went to tell Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz what I had seen in Baghdad in the days following Saddam Hussein's overthrow. For nearly an hour, I described the catastrophic aftermath of the invasion -- the unchecked looting of every public institution in Baghdad, the devastation of Iraq's cultural heritage, the anger of ordinary Iraqis who couldn't understand why the world's only superpower was letting this happen.

I also described two particularly disturbing incidents -- one I had witnessed and the other I had heard about. On April 16, 2003, a mob attacked and looted the Iraqi equivalent of the Centers for Disease Control, taking live HIV and black fever virus among other potentially lethal materials. US troops were stationed across the street but did not intervene because they didn't know the building was important.

When he found out, the young American lieutenant was devastated. He shook his head and said, "I hope I am not responsible for Armageddon." About the same time, looters entered the warehouses at Iraq's sprawling nuclear facilities at Tuwaitha on Baghdad's outskirts. They took barrels of yellowcake (raw uranium), apparently dumping the uranium and using the barrels to hold water. US troops were at Tuwaitha but did not interfere.

There was nothing secret about the Disease Center or the Tuwaitha warehouses. Inspectors had repeatedly visited the center looking for evidence of a biological weapons program. The Tuwaitha warehouses included materials from Iraq's nuclear program, which had been dismantled after the 1991 Gulf War. The United Nations had sealed the materials, and they remained untouched until the US troops arrived.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/27/eyewitness_to_a_failure_in_iraq/

- Phil

[pedelen99]

That pickup truck must have made a WHOLE BUNCH of runs!!

If one pickup truck can drive unhindered around a nine square mile ammo dump, then obviously it's not a particularly secure area. if one, then why not two? Or four? Or who knows how many?

Americans were there on April 4. And April 10th. And April 18th. And after that... who knows? But there are a lot of gaps in time there.

- Phil

[pedelen99]

From the NY Times:

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/international/middleeast/28bomb.html?hp&ex=1099022400&en=b50b42da5ffd60de&ei=5094&partner=homepage

- Phil

[bseitz]

IThis one one concrete example of a massive failure in leadership - a failure to plan and to execute. We went into Iraq to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, yet it appears that what we did was just facilitate that transfer. Al Qaqaa was not the only place left unguarded. In fact, just about every place was left unguarded. I'll post some more quotes after this.
It's certainly a far cry from the 18 Army Rangers slaughtered in Mogadishu as a direct result of Clinton's failure to allow armor to protect them for fear of offending the natives.

[bseitz]

From the NY Times:

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/international/middleeast/28bomb.html?hp&ex=1099022400&en=b50b42da5ffd60de&ei=5094&partner=homepage

- Phil
"..three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said"? I guess this qualifies as indisputable evidence at the Grey Old Lady these days.

[bseitz]

If one pickup truck can drive unhindered around a nine square mile ammo dump, then obviously it's not a particularly secure area. if one, then why not two? Or four? Or who knows how many?

Americans were there on April 4. And April 10th. And April 18th. And after that... who knows? But there are a lot of gaps in time there.

- Phil
Who knows how many? It would takes dozens. The witness you quoted described seeing one.

[pedelen99]

It's certainly a far cry from the 18 Army Rangers slaughtered in Mogadishu as a direct result of Clinton's failure to allow armor to protect them for fear of offending the natives.

Nice try to change the subject, but Clinton's not up for re-election. Bush is. And how many US troops are dead because of weapons and explosives looted from all the various ammo dumps that the administration made no effort to secure? We're around 1,100 dead, as I understand...

They knew about this ammo dump. They didn't secure it. 380 tons of high explosives are gone, along with God knows what else. And then, 18 months later, they're trying to cover it up. Those are the facts on the ground. That's reality.

- Phil

[bseitz]

When he found out, the young American lieutenant was devastated. He shook his head and said, "I hope I am not responsible for Armageddon." About the same time, looters entered the warehouses at Iraq's sprawling nuclear facilities at Tuwaitha on Baghdad's outskirts. They took barrels of yellowcake (raw uranium), apparently dumping the uranium and using the barrels to hold water. US troops were at Tuwaitha but did not interfere.
This can't possibly be true. Iraq had disbanded their nuclear program in 1991, remember? Were the barrels marked "Product of Niger"?

[pedelen99]

Who knows how many? It would takes dozens. The witness you quoted described seeing one.

The explosives were there April 18th. They were gone mid-May. Those are the facts. You can play around with your 'obscure the facts by questioning the details' defense all you want. I'm not playing.

Bush didn't secure this ammo dump. Or any other ammo dump. There are no excuses.

- Phil

[bseitz]

Nice try to change the subject, but Clinton's not up for re-election. Bush is. And how many US troops are dead because of weapons and explosives looted from all the various ammo dumps that the administration made no effort to secure? We're around 1,100 dead, as I understand...

They knew about this ammo dump. They didn't secure it. 380 tons of high explosives are gone, along with God knows what else. And then, 18 months later, they're trying to cover it up. Those are the facts on the ground. That's reality.

- Phil
Just adding a little perspective (as uncomfortable as that may be for you). Can't wait to see those satellite photos.

[bseitz]

The explosives were there April 18th. They were gone mid-May. Those are the facts. You can play around with your 'obscure the facts by questioning the details' defense all you want. I'm not playing.

Bush didn't secure this ammo dump. Or any other ammo dump. There are no excuses.

- Phil
Bush didn't secure this ammo dump? :lol We'll have to have a word with Captain Bush.

The explosives were there? I saw pictures of barrels. Did the intrepid reporters from Channel 5 venture in to see if there was anything in the barrels? Were the contents tested on April 18? Could the explosives have been removed through the ventilation shafts and the barrels left empty? Or filled with something else? You're awfully sure of yourself with very little evidence. But that's not uncommon among the libs. Often wrong, but never in doubt.

[pedelen99]

Just adding a little perspective (as uncomfortable as that may be for you). Can't wait to see those satellite photos.

The satellite photos have been released. They show two trucks outside a bunker on March 17th. I'm sure you can view them somewhere... and when you're done with that, you can go to

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al_qa_qaa-imagery4.htm

Where you can read:

However, a comparison of features in the DoD-released imagery with available commercial satellite imagery, combined with the use of an IAEA map showing the location of bunkers used to store the HMX explosives, reveals that the DoD image is not one of the bunkers containing the missing stockpiles.

And then they'll show you exactly how the satellite photos show the trucks are NOT parked by the bunkers that the IAEA sealed.

Hope that was worth the wait for ya!

- Phil

[pedelen99]

I swear, this administration is not as good at covering things up as I had thought... although they're certainly scrambling for something to save their collective asses.

- Phil

[pedelen99]

Bush didn't secure this ammo dump? :lol We'll have to have a word with Captain Bush.

The explosives were there? I saw pictures of barrels. Did the intrepid reporters from Channel 5 venture in to see if there was anything in the barrels? Were the contents tested on April 18? Could the explosives have been removed through the ventilation shafts and the barrels left empty? Or filled with something else? You're awfully sure of yourself with very little evidence. But that's not uncommon among the libs. Often wrong, but never in doubt.

:lol :lol :lol

That's the best you can come up with??? Man, I thought the blaming the Russians was more creative than that...

- Phil

[bseitz]

The satellite photos have been released. They show two trucks outside a bunker on March 17th. I'm sure you can view them somewhere... and when you're done with that, you can go to

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al_qa_qaa-imagery4.htm

Where you can read:

However, a comparison of features in the DoD-released imagery with available commercial satellite imagery, combined with the use of an IAEA map showing the location of bunkers used to store the HMX explosives, reveals that the DoD image is not one of the bunkers containing the missing stockpiles.

And then they'll show you exactly how the satellite photos show the trucks are NOT parked by the bunkers that the IAEA sealed.

Hope that was worth the wait for ya!

- Phil
Could you point me to the site that shows minute by minute photos of these trucks from the minute they got there until the minute they left? Oh, and how about minute by minute shots in the weeks before troops arrived.

[bseitz]

:lol :lol :lol

That's the best you can come up with??? Man, I thought the blaming the Russians was more creative than that...

- Phil
Yeah, I guess those stupid ragheads couldn't possibly do anything that sneaky, right. Yet they were out there tooling around in dozens of stealth trucks. Yeah, you're right.

[pedelen99]

Could you point me to the site that shows minute by minute photos of these trucks from the minute they got there until the minute they left? Oh, and how about minute by minute shots in the weeks before troops arrived.

No. I've already pointed out I'm not your research monkey.

I'd be happy to point you to the site that shows that the explosives were on site on April 18th. That's at:

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=64

No need to thank me! :D

- Phil

[bseitz]

No, I've already pointed out I'm not your research monkey.

I'd be happy to point you to the site that shows that the explosives were on site on April 18th. That's at:

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=64

No need to thank me! :D

- Phil
I'll take that as a no. That photo shows trucks in the facility. Looks like a smoking gun to me. But then again, how could they possibly have driven several hundred meters to the other bunkers. Clearly immpossible.

Pictures of barrels. How enlightening. Any idea what's in them?

[pedelen99]

I'll take that as a no. That photo shows trucks in the facility. Looks like a smoking gun to me. But then again, how could they possibly have driven several hundred meters to the other bunkers. Clearly immpossible.

Pictures of barrels. How enlightening. Any idea what's in them?

Hey, the DoD released those satellite photos... that's the best defense they're been able to come up with. I'm just pointing out that they're not what the DoD says they are. And you can believe that if they had photos of trucks at the right bunkers they'd be floating them out as quickly as they could.

Sure, they could have driven those trucks down to another bunker, or the local McDonalds, or anywhere. In fact, I might be concerned that perhaps they packed up all those explosives in there... if there wasn't video showing the explosives. Bet Bush is kicking himself about the whole 'imbedding the press' idea about this point in time.

- Phil

[pedelen99]

Pictures of barrels. How enlightening. Any idea what's in them?

Explosives. If you look closely it's written on the side of the barrels, and on the boxes. :)

Glad to be able to help you out there...

- Phil

[Holla9]

Explosives. If you look closely it's written on the side of the barrels, and on the boxes. :)

Glad to be able to help you out there...

- Phil


Anything could be in them.

[bseitz]

Hey, the DoD released those satellite photos... that's the best defense they're been able to come up with. I'm just pointing out that they're not what the DoD says they are. And you can believe that if they had photos of trucks at the right bunkers they'd be floating them out as quickly as they could.

Sure, they could have driven those trucks down to another bunker, or the local McDonalds, or anywhere. In fact, I might be concerned that perhaps they packed up all those explosives in there... if there wasn't video showing the explosives. Bet Bush is kicking himself about the whole 'imbedding the press' idea about this point in time.

- Phil
Video showed barrels. Nothing more. Nothing less. Trucks were there. Explosives are gone. Very simple.

[pedelen99]

Video showed barrels. Nothing more. Nothing less. Trucks were there. Explosives are gone. Very simple.

So let me get this straight... your theory is that the Iraqis removed the ventilation shafts, took the explosives out of the barrels and boxes, took them to the trucks that were parked by a different bunker, replaced something else in the barrels and boxes, reattached the ventilation shafts, and then took these explosives and hid them somewhere. All while being assisted by Russian secret agents, and doing all this very secretively because they knew we were going to clean their clock and they needed supplies for the insurgency, but they didn't want to get in trouble by getting caught breaking the IAEA seals?

Ok, I'm happy to let Bush's re-election hinge on that theory.

And you don't get to be part of the Reality Based Community.

- Phil

[bseitz]

So let me get this straight... your theory is that the Iraqis removed the ventilation shafts, took the explosives out of the barrels and boxes, took them to the trucks that were parked by a different bunker, replaced something else in the barrels and boxes, reattached the ventilation shafts, and then took these explosives and hid them somewhere. All while being assisted by Russian secret agents, and doing all this very secretively because they knew we were going to clean their clock and they needed supplies for the insurgency, but they didn't want to get in trouble by getting caught breaking the IAEA seals?

Ok, I'm happy to let Bush's re-election hinge on that theory.

And you don't get to be part of the Reality Based Community.

- Phil
And you believe they have invisible trucks that can carry tons of explosives across the desert. Some reality.

[pedelen99]

And you believe they have invisible trucks that can carry tons of explosives across the desert. Some reality.

Let me refer you back to the NY Times link that talks to the Iraqis about the looting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/i...artner=homepage

In particular note the part about enterprising locals renting their trucks to looters.

Here's the key point. NO ONE WAS WATCHING. You don't need to be invisible if no one is watching.

Note that the April 18th video shows no signs of looting. David Kay, when he got there in mid-May, reported that the site had been heavily looted. The DoD has mentioned three units that were at al-Qaqaa, none of them stayed more than a day. DoD has not mentioned any unit assigned to secure the facility between mid April and mid May.

Let me repeat. No one was watching. It's simple. Occam's razor.

I know you have trouble considering that. The reason is, as well as being simp