# Al Qaqaa Facility: Making the World More Dangerous in Iraq



## PeachMonkey (Oct 25, 2004)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html

The Al Qaqaa facililty, which was monitored by the UN for years, and which _the IAEA specifically warned the United States about securing_, has been picked over by looters since the US invasion.   

380 tons -- _760,000 pounds_ -- of high explosive are missing.  _One_ pound of explosive of this type was used in the Lockerbie bombing.

We invaded Iraq over WMD, but we incompetely allowed high explosive materials to leak into the hands of, most likely, terrorists and insurgents.

So, the next time you're asking yourself if the invasion of Iraq made the world safer, you might ask:

-- How many bombings have already used materials that we should have safeguarded?
-- How many terrorist killings in the future could have been prevented if the United States had taken the UN's advice and properly safeguarded that facility?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 25, 2004)

Same old story. We, and the old Soviets, and the old South Africans, and the Cubans, and the Chinese, and the Taiwanese, and the Czechs, and the Argentinians, and Israel, and on and on, have been throwing military hardware and military expertise at the world like drunken Mummers hurling beads at Mardi Gras for forty years now, and then going astonished when the beads come hurtling back at us.

Oh well. I love capitalism.


----------



## TwistofFat (Oct 25, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html
> 
> The Al Qaqaa facililty, which was monitored by the UN for years, and which _the IAEA specifically warned the United States about securing_, has been picked over by looters since the US invasion.
> 
> ...


PM - I hate papers that make you register - that fits Robert's lamentation of capitalsim as well!!  Is there any indication on when this was found.  My understanding is these materials were never located from the 1991 conflict?  I do agree with your first point about the material, but if these explosives had disappeared prior to the invasion or were not where we thought (or the UN) they "should be".  I may be wrong, just looking for clarification.

Thanks - Glenn


----------



## Blindside (Oct 25, 2004)

The presence of these explosives was documented by the IAEA in January 2003.

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


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 25, 2004)

TwistofFat said:
			
		

> My understanding is these materials were never located from the 1991 conflict?  I do agree with your first point about the material, but if these explosives had disappeared prior to the invasion or were not where we thought (or the UN) they "should be".  I may be wrong, just looking for clarification.



Hi Glenn,

Blindside points out below that the IAEA demonstrated that these explosives were under the control of the Iraqi (Hussein) government in January '03, immediately prior to the US invasion.

The NY Times article points out that the IAEA was concerned immediately after the invasion that terrorists were helping themselves to the "largest explosives bonanza in history".  

"Earlier this month, in a letter to the I.A.E.A. in Vienna, a senior official from Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology wrote that the stockpile disappeared after early April 2003 because of "the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security.""

Apparently, machine tools that can be used for nuclear and non-nuclear uses both have also disappeared from the facility.

In addition to the extreme hazards presented by "simple" explosive devices using this powerful explosive, it's also ideal for generating the kind of implosive force used by simple Hiroshima-style atomic weapons.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 25, 2004)

So, prior to the invasion they were under guard, and we knew where they were.
After the invasion, we have no idea where they went.

Ya know...this makes perfect sense.  We invaded Iraq to stop them from building WMD that we 'knew' they had, and now, they can't make em and they've lost all the parts.

Mission accomplished.


I can see the press conference now....
GWB - "We have eliminated Iraqs ability to create WMD."

Reporter - "Mr. President, what about the missing equipment?"

GWB - "I said they no longer have the ability to create WMD."

Reporter - "Yes, I heard you, but what about the equipment that you failed to secure and is now missing?"

GWB - "Sadamn was a bad man. Evil.  BOO!!!!, and we had to stop him before he armed our enemies.  Boys, Mr. Reporter here just won a free tour of our Cuba Resort.  Any more questions? I didn't think so. "


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 25, 2004)

"Look Ma! Why is there a funny shaped cloud over there? It looks like one of them mushrooms out in the field?"


----------



## TwistofFat (Oct 25, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Hi Glenn,
> 
> Blindside points out below that the IAEA demonstrated that these explosives were under the control of the Iraqi (Hussein) government in January '03, immediately prior to the US invasion.
> 
> ...


Unbelievable.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 26, 2004)

You know, just when I think I'm getting to be jaded about recent political events, something like this comes along, and I realize I'm not paranoid enough by half.

Holy ... something. (self-edited for cleanliness)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 26, 2004)

It's just more proof that the more the government intervenes, the more if really really ****s it up.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 26, 2004)

I would focus that even more and say, "this Administration".


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 26, 2004)

Naw, it's a consistant.  They once asked Bill Gates why he doesn't run for President...he cited the inefficient organization, the lack of accountability and the pure chaos of the office as reasons.  Personally, I think it was because the President is required to shower daily, but thats just me.   Then again, I think he could do it. http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemId=9156

But the last few US administrations have repeatedly dropped the ball when it counted and it's created this spiralling mess we're in today.

GB Sr. allows Iraq to invade Kuwait, then attacks Iraq but stops short of 'finishing the job'.  He betrays countless Iraqis in the process.  This creates lots of hatred for the US.
BC ignores intelegence data.  The WTC is bombed.  USS Cole is attacked. Oportunities to catch OBL are missed. This creates more seeds for future events.
GB Jr allows WTC attacks. Ignores intelegence reports. Misinforms US People. Wages illegal war in Iraq with no exit strategy, and little occupation plans. Tons of munitions now MIA. Hatred of America at a world-wide high.  

Over a decade of incidences, stupidity, and missed opportunity has created an enviroment world wide where America is feared, hated and not trusted. Amounts of munitions flood into terrorist hands at levels comparable to the fall of the Soviet Empire.  

An atomic bomb comparable to the ones dropped on Japan can be assembled within an area the size of a VW Bus.  How hard is it to hide 1 VW Bus in NYC? Washington? LA? 

If these groups can fund all the stuff they have, certainly they can afford to buy a surplus sub, a couple sets of scuba tanks and sneak within swimming range of US shores.  A cargo ship, a mini sub, or a pair of jet skis and a waiting pickup truck on shore?  If a geek can think this much up, what can the guys who scheme all day think of?

That's why I'm scared.


----------



## Ender (Oct 26, 2004)

"An NBC News crew that accompanied U.S. soldiers who seized the Al-Qaqaa base three weeks into the war in Iraq reported that troops discovered significant stockpiles of bombs, but no sign of the missing HMX and RDX explosives."

"......The letter informed the IAEA that since Sept. 4, 2003, looting at Al-Qaqaa had resulted in the loss of 214.67 tons of HMX, 155.68 tons of RDX and 6.39 tons of PETN explosives. It was not  clear how Iraqi authorities arrived at that date. 

ElBaradeis cover letter to the council said that the HMX had been under IAEA seal and that the RDX and PETN were both subject to regular monitoring of stock levels. 

The presence of these amounts was verified by the IAEA in January 2003, he said. 


But..but...I keep hearing that there weren't ANY WMD in Iraq!......so there was??..*GASP!!!


----------



## TwistofFat (Oct 26, 2004)

I just heard on the radio that NBC news has a story running that the NYT article is false.  NBC had a reporter with the 101 AB that was at this locale at the beginning of the war and weapons weren't there (or something like that). If anyone has access to NBC or google please advise.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 26, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> "But..but...I keep hearing that there weren't ANY WMD in Iraq!......so there was??..*GASP!!!



Are you being disingenuous or simply ignorant?  High explosive is not a weapon of mass destruction.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 26, 2004)

Here's the NBC article about the controversy, TwistOfFat:

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

"An NBC News crew that accompanied U.S. soldiers who seized the Al-Qaqaa base three weeks into the war in Iraq reported that troops discovered significant stockpiles of bombs, but no sign of the missing HMX and RDX explosives.

It remains unclear, however, how extensively the U.S. forces searched the site in the immediate aftermath of the invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.

The State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said that coalition forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at Al Qaqaa facility after the war, looking for weapons of mass destruction. He said the troops found none, but did see signs of looting. "


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 26, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> "An NBC News crew that accompanied U.S. soldiers who seized the Al-Qaqaa base three weeks into the war in Iraq reported that troops discovered significant stockpiles of bombs, but no sign of the missing HMX and RDX explosives."
> 
> "......The letter informed the IAEA that since Sept. 4, 2003, looting at Al-Qaqaa had resulted in the loss of 214.67 tons of HMX, 155.68 tons of RDX and 6.39 tons of PETN explosives. It was not clear how Iraqi authorities arrived at that date.
> 
> ...


Oh, Please Ender ... HMX, RDX, and PETN are not Weapons of Mass Destruction. These are 'Conventional Weapons'. And you know that! If you read the entire article, which seems evident as you cut and pasted portions thereof, you also know that some 35 tons of the material went missing between 1998 and 2002 when the IAEA was not in Iraq. The Iraqi's report that the 35 tons were perhaps used for industrial purposes. 

This missing material was under IAEA seal in January 2003. Its existance had been verified. And now its gone.

Weapons of Mass Destruction include NUCLEAR weapons. Some argue that it also includes Chemical and Biological weapons, but this is even disputed. But, Plastic Explosives (simtex & C4), which use HMX and RDX as ingredients are not Weapons of Mass Destruction.


----------



## Ender (Oct 26, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Are you being disingenuous or simply ignorant?  High explosive is not a weapon of mass destruction.




It's tongue in cheek Gomer......Any stockpiles of Bombs, coupled with explosives and Biological agents are WMD.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 26, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> It's tongue in cheek Gomer......Any stockpiles of Bombs, coupled with explosives and Biological agents are WMD.


To which known and/or discovered biological agents are you referring?

BTW, "Gomer"?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 26, 2004)

"Gomer"?  lol

PeachMonkey's a well-read and savvy military historian.


----------



## Jeff Boler (Oct 26, 2004)

Boy the democrats and their conspiracies...

Guess what?  This stuff was missing along time ago.  From the Drudgereport:



> 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.
> 
> ...



You know, with all of the conspiracies that the liberals have thrown out in an attempt to sway the election, John Kerry should be winning by a landslide.  Now why isn't that happening?

Bogus, BS Story.  CBS News strikes again.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 26, 2004)

So where is the reporting from the supposed first-in NBC news crew? Why would they then report, from an embedded position, 3 weeks later?

And reading a report in, say, the Times, does not count as conspiracy theory, I hate to tell you.  Sitting in a bunker with a tinfoil hat, praying to Our Great Leader to save us from feminists, liberals, and tree-huggers might be, though.


----------



## Ender (Oct 26, 2004)

From Intelligence Digest:

"Since the beginning of the year, Libya has destroyed more than 3,000 unfilled bomb casings intended for chemical/biological agents and consolidated the agent inventory in a single storage location to make inspection easier for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Libya has also acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention and is now preparing for the destruction of its chemical stocks under OPCW supervision."



All you really need are bomb casings, explosives, and chemical/biological agents to create WMD....if Libya had these, you know damn well Iraq did too.

And I am an Aerospace engineer. I've worked on projects such as: Sparrow missiles, Stinger Missiles, Trident submarines, MK50 Torpedoes, F-16's, F-18's, the B-2 Bomber, IFF (Interrogation Friend or Foe),Various Satellites, and the Mars Rover...shrugs.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 26, 2004)

> if Libya had these, you know damn well Iraq did too.


 Not with any degree of certainty.  Not as anything I could define as knowledge.  It is speculative at best.


----------



## Jeff Boler (Oct 26, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> So where is the reporting from the supposed first-in NBC news crew? Why would they then report, from an embedded position, 3 weeks later?
> 
> And reading a report in, say, the Times, does not count as conspiracy theory, I hate to tell you.  Sitting in a bunker with a tinfoil hat, praying to Our Great Leader to save us from feminists, liberals, and tree-huggers might be, though.






> Timing of theft
> of Iraq explosives
> remains a mystery
> 
> ...


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


----------



## TwistofFat (Oct 26, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> And reading a report in, say, the Times, does not count as conspiracy theory, I hate to tell you. Sitting in a bunker with a tinfoil hat, praying to Our Great Leader to save us from feminists, liberals, and tree-huggers might be, though.


So me sitting in my basement encased in Al foil makes me nuts? Damn tree-huggers...always watching from their leafy hideouts disguised as birds, watching...


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 26, 2004)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

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



Thanks for re-posting the same article that two of us already posted above.

You'll note that *both* the NY Times and MSNBC point out that this theft was first reported by the IAEA and Iraqi authorities.  Are they conspiring to win the election for Kerry, as you accuse CBS News and the NY Times of doing?

If those news organizations did not discuss this story, would they then be doing their jobs as reporters, or should good Americans just shut up and remain silent when faced with stories of this nature?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 26, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> All you really need are bomb casings, explosives, and chemical/biological agents to create WMD....if Libya had these, you know damn well Iraq did too.



Other than the fact that those chemical/biological agents haven't been found (but don't let facts slow you down)...

How is this at all relevant to the Al Qaqaa depot of high-explosives and machine tools?


----------



## Ender (Oct 26, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Not with any degree of certainty.  Not as anything I could define as knowledge.  It is speculative at best.




*L.....and Elvis is still alive right?


----------



## Ender (Oct 26, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Other than the fact that those chemical/biological agents haven't been found (but don't let facts slow you down)...
> 
> How is this at all relevant to the Al Qaqaa depot of high-explosives and machine tools?




So the empty Sarin cases mean nothing?*L


----------



## Jeff Boler (Oct 26, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> If those news organizations did not discuss this story, would they then be doing their jobs as reporters, or should good Americans just shut up and remain silent when faced with stories of this nature?



No, but you should consider the source.  And if they are just reporting news, that's one thing.  If they are holding out on stories until days before a presidential election, then that's something else.   Had this been reported when it actually happened, then it would be news. This was nothing more than an attempt at swaying things Kerry's way.  If you want to believe everything they tell you at face value, then that's your business.  However, you while find yourself more ignorant and uninformed over time.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 26, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> *L.....and Elvis is still alive right?



I see how you relate these two points:

-- Iraq's WMD deposits were destroyed by UN weapons inspectors, and continued to not be found by further inspections by the UN before the war, and the United States after the war.  Evidence has also been produced showing that senior US intelligence analysts knew this before the war

-- Elvis has been claimed to still be alive by numerous housewives

I guess a thick-headed Gomer like me still doesn't get how these relate, or moreover, how it's at all relevant to the thread.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 26, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> *L.....and Elvis is still alive right?


A most logical statement of your postition.  Well articulated.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 26, 2004)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> If they are holding out on stories until days before a presidential election, then that's something else.   Had this been reported when it actually happened, then it would be news.



The letter from the IAEA to the Iraqi interim government was on October 10th, 2004.  Are they more ignorant and uninformed over time?  Are they trying to sway things Kerry's way with such a late report?



			
				Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> If you want to believe everything they tell you at face value, then that's your business.  However, you while find yourself more ignorant and uninformed over time.



I don't believe what the press tells me at face value, given their rampant inability to see through the lies of this (and other) administrations.  I do tend to believe the IAEA, whose documents are actually reproduced in the NY Times article (that it's becoming clearer and clearer that you didn't read), a bit more.

If one is to truly avoid being ignorant, and to fully consider sources, it helps to actually read them.  All of them.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 26, 2004)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> No, but you should consider the source. And if they are just reporting news, that's one thing. If they are holding out on stories until days before a presidential election, then that's something else. Had this been reported when it actually happened, then it would be news. This was nothing more than an attempt at swaying things Kerry's way. If you want to believe everything they tell you at face value, then that's your business. However, you while find yourself more ignorant and uninformed over time.


Come on, now.

We are not addressing the factual base of the story right?  Just the timing.  So, it's been done before.  So it's a strategic *reminder* of previously known fact.  

Does that make it news?  Probably not.  By the way, which are the unbiased US news programs again?


----------



## Jeff Boler (Oct 26, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Come on, now.
> 
> We are not addressing the factual base of the story right?  Just the timing.  So, it's been done before.  So it's a strategic *reminder* of previously known fact.



Great.  We won World War II.  It's not news, but since everyone is using "reminders", why not throw it in now?  I think you have to look at motivation.  



> Does that make it news?  Probably not.



Then why report it?  If you want to read old news, go to the archives or go to a library.  The point was that the "news" story was put out for one purpose, and it wasn't for reporting on missing weapons.  It was to give George Bush something else to defend.

And again, with all the stuff that Bush has reportedly done that was wrong, why isn't John Kerry winning by a landslide?


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 26, 2004)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> And again, with all the stuff that Bush has reportedly done that was wrong, why isn't John Kerry winning by a landslide?


That isn't the issue here.





			
				Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> Then why report it? If you want to read old news, go to the archives or go to a library. The point was that the "news" story was put out for one purpose, and it wasn't for reporting on missing weapons. It was to give George Bush something else to defend.


 Though I agree with your assesment regarding the newsworthiness and bad timing, that doesn't negate the facts presented in the story.  Where are the explosives?  Why were they left unprotected?  Is arming the people you are trying to fight an efficient tactical maneuver?  It's demonstrative of the complete mismanagement and lack of planning in Iraq.  Blame it on Bush, blame it on Rumsfeld, doesn't matter.  You cannot blame it on Kerry or the news reporting agency.


----------



## MisterMike (Oct 26, 2004)

NEVER MIND FACTS,
BLAME AMERICA
Instead Of Waiting For Full Story, Kerry Gins Up His Attack Machine Based On Flawed New York Times Reporting
________________________________________________

NEW YORK TIMES INK BARELY DRY BEFORE KERRY ON ATTACK

Before 1:30 am Monday Morning, Kerry Campaign Advisor Joe Lockhart Alleged Cover Up.  Today, the Bush administration must answer for what may be the most grave and catastrophic mistake in a tragic series of blunders in Iraq. How did they fail to secure nearly 380 tons of known, deadly explosives despite clear warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency to do so?   And why was this information unearthed by reporters  and was it covered up by our national security officials?  (John Kerry For President, Lockhart Statement On Reports Of Missing Explosives In Iraq, Press Release, 10/25/04; CNNs The Morning Grind, 10/25/04)

Kerry Said U.S. Troops Failed To Guard Those Stockpiles.  After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq, this administration failed to guard those stockpiles - where nearly 380 tons of highly explosive weapons were kept.  (John Kerry For President, Kerry Statement On Bushs Failure To Secure Explosives In Iraq, Press Release, 10/25/04)

And Called Supposed Failure To Safeguard Iraqi Explosives Depot One Of The Great Blunders Of War.  Kerry, who hopes that appearances by Clinton in at least three battleground states this week will mobilize supporters, seized on news reports that tons of explosives had disappeared from a military installation south of Baghdad after the United States invaded Iraq.  The incredible incompetence of this president and this administration has put our troops at risk, and put this country at greater risk than we ought to be, Kerry said, calling the missing explosives one of the great blunders of Bushs war effort.  (Michael Finnegan and Mark Z. Barabak, Sharper Barbs As Nov. 2 Nears, Los Angeles Times, 10/26/04)

*NEW YORK TIMES AND KERRY CAMPAIGN ARENT 
ONES TO LET FACTS GET IN WAY OF GOOD STORY* 

*NBC Nightly News Reported That On April 10, 2003, One Day After Baghdad Fell, U.S. Troops Entered Al-Qaqaa And Did Not Find Explosives.*  NBCS JIM MIKLASZEWSKI: April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Armys 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al-Qaqaa weapons installation south of Baghdad.  But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon. In a letter this month, the Iraqi interim government told the International Atomic Energy Agency the high explosives were lost to theft and looting due to lack of security. Critics claim there were simply not enough U.S. troops to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles, weapons now being used by insurgents and terrorists to wage a guerrilla war in Iraq.  (NBCs Nightly News, 10/25/04)

No Materials Under IAEA Seals Were Discovered When Coalition Troops Searched Site In April 2003.  Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said U.S.-led forces searched the Qaqaa facility after the invasion. Coalition forces were present in the vicinity at various times during and after major combat operations, he said. The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility. While some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals.  (Colum Lynch and Bradley Graham, Iraqi Explosives Missing, U.N. Is Told, The Washington Post, 10/26/04)

IAEA Head Told U.N. Security Council Explosives Were Unaccounted For One Month Before Invasion.  IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told the U.N. Security Council one month before the allied invasion that Iraq had moved some of its highly explosive HMX from the Al Qaqaa site. The United Nations could not verify Iraqi claims that it used the explosives for commercial uses. The missing explosives include HMX as well as RDX, two highly explosive substances used to make C-5 plastic devices that can be used for legitimate commercial purposes, or by terrorists to bring down an airplane.  (Rowan Scarborough, Pentagon Responds To Missing-Explosives Report, The Washington Times, 10/26/04)

The Pentagon Also Said Allies Have Cleared More Than 10,000 Arms Caches Since April 2003, Destroying More Than 240,000 Tons Of Arms And Explosives. Another 162,000 Tons Are Awaiting Destruction.  (Rowan Scarborough, Pentagon Responds To Missing-Explosives Report, The Washington Times, 10/26/04)

Site In Question Was Medium Priority On List Of More Than 500 Sites With Iraqi Weapons Caches.  One senior official noted that the Qaqaa complex where the explosives HMX and RDX were stored was listed as a medium priority site on the CIA's list of more than 500 sites that needed to be searched and secured during the invasion.  (James Glanz, William J. Broad And David E. Sanger, Huge Cache Of Explosives Vanished From Site In Iraq, The New York Times, 10/25/04)

*KERRY AND NEW YORK TIMES IGNORE FACTS, STAY ON ATTACK 

Kerry Still Falsely Claims Explosives Vanished Because Of Bush Administration Failures.*  Yesterday, we learned that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives vanished from one of Iraq's most sensitive military installations, after the invasion. Just as the Bush Administration's failure to secure Iraq's borders has led to thousands of terrorists flooding into the country, their failure to secure those explosives threatens American troops and the American people. Before the war, the explosives were monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which warned the Bush Administration that they could fall into the wrong hands.  And it urged the Bush Administration to secure them. But we rushed to war in Iraq without a plan to safeguard sensitive sites like this one. And now, the explosives are missing, unaccounted for, and could be in the hands of terrorists - used to attack our troops or our people.  (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks In Green Bay, WI, 10/26/04)

*New York Times Ignores NBC News Report.*  The White House sought on Monday to explain the disappearance of 380 tons of high explosives in Iraq that American forces were supposed to secure, as Senator John Kerry seized on the missing cache as ;one of the great blunders of Iraq; and said President Bush's incredible incompetence had put American troops at risk.  [E]ven as Mr. Bush pressed his case [against Kerry], his aides tried to explain why American forces had ignored warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency about the vulnerability of the huge stockpile of high explosives, whose disappearance was first reported on Monday by CBS and The New York Times.  (David E. Sanger, Iraq Explosives Become Issue In Campaign, The New York Times, 10/26/04)


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 26, 2004)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> Then why report it?  If you want to read old news, go to the archives or go to a library.  The point was that the "news" story was put out for one purpose, and it wasn't for reporting on missing weapons.  It was to give George Bush something else to defend.



You continue to harp on the idea of this news being released to target the Bush/Kerry election, and the timing, without responding to the fact, which I pointed out, that this article came about as a result of the IAEA, which wrote to the Iraqi interim government on October 10 2004, and then made the information public.

I'll ask again, and add a few more questions:

-- If the IAEA just released this information, how is it "old news"?
-- Is the IAEA part of this conspiracy theory?
-- If the information is correct, and it comes out close to the election, and the US did allow those explosives out, is it then okay for American soldiers and civilians all around the world to be killed using them because those dirty liberals only discussed it right before the election?

I await your answers.


----------



## Jeff Boler (Oct 26, 2004)

Here is the reason behind this "news release"

http://www.johnkerry.com/video/102604_obligation.html


----------



## Jeff Boler (Oct 26, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> You continue to harp on the idea of this news being released to target the Bush/Kerry election, and the timing, without responding to the fact, which I pointed out, that this article came about as a result of the IAEA, which wrote to the Iraqi interim government on October 10 2004, and then made the information public.
> 
> I'll ask again, and add a few more questions:
> 
> ...







> NBC Nightly News Reported That On April 10, 2003, One Day After Baghdad Fell, U.S. Troops Entered Al-Qaqaa And Did Not Find Explosives. NBCS JIM MIKLASZEWSKI: April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Armys 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al-Qaqaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon. In a letter this month, the Iraqi interim government told the International Atomic Energy Agency the high explosives were lost to theft and looting due to lack of security. Critics claim there were simply not enough U.S. troops to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles, weapons now being used by insurgents and terrorists to wage a guerrilla war in Iraq. (NBCs Nightly News, 10/25/04)



Do you think the IAEA wants Bush back in power?



> -- If the information is correct, and it comes out close to the election, and the US did allow those explosives out, is it then okay for American soldiers and civilians all around the world to be killed using them because those dirty liberals only discussed it right before the election?



You claim i'm bouncing around the issue, but you are the one who is actually doing it.  You act like the "news" organizations are reporting this to keep the fine people of the US informed, but there only motivation for this was to keep Bush out of office again.  That's it.

The weapons are gone.  They were gone before we got there.  Have they been used on American soil?  No.  Have they been used in Iraq?  We don't know that.  People want to flame Bush for the loss of +1000 lives in Iraq, what they should actually be doing is praise him that only that many people have died.  What was the life expectancy of a soldier in Vietnam?


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 26, 2004)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> So if we knew it back then, why is it news now?


A couple of points.

From the NY Times article in the topical post: 





> The White House said President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was informed within the past month that the explosives were missing.


Secondly, irrespective of the timing, what about the facts presented?  Is this not a valid concern?


----------



## Jeff Boler (Oct 26, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Secondly, irrespective of the timing, what about the facts presented?  Is this not a valid concern?



Of course it is.  But since the weapons were not there when we took over the security for them, i'm not sure that we are going to get any answers, nor do I think that the arguement to blame Bush for it is valid.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 26, 2004)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> Of course it is.  But since the weapons were not there when we took over the security for them, i'm not sure that we are going to get any answers, nor do I think that the arguement to blame Bush for it is valid.


 Were they there prior to the invasion?
If they vanished afterwards it is fair to blame him and his administration.

If they were missing previously, then I would guess that it's the UN's fault for letting them 'vanish'.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 26, 2004)

From the same article - 





> White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year.


 Is this claim in dispute?  Does anyone have a source or reference providing a basis for that refutation?


----------



## Jeff Boler (Oct 26, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> If they were missing previously, then I would guess that it's the UN's fault for letting them 'vanish'.



Or to even be there in the first place.  I think people forget the fact that if the UN would have followed it's own rules, the whole IRAQ issue would a moot point.  But, there are too many people in the UN that were making profits off of Sadaam's rule of that country.


----------



## MisterMike (Oct 26, 2004)

I guess it's UN policy to let them keep their explosives, just not use them for weapons.   

Funny how we blame the administration 100% but not the looters for the roadside and suicide bombings. So, 3 weeks into the war, we were supposed to secure Iraq? People sure have a gooood impression of our military and how fast they can safely oust a regime. It was tough enough to secure the oil fields and pipelines.

Still a little too much gray area to say for certain it was all stolen after the war began, considering we openly gave Saddam weeks to come clean(prepare for war) before we levelled the place.

Common sense says it was inevitable.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 26, 2004)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> Do you think the IAEA wants Bush back in power?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The President and the civilian administrators of the United States Department of Defense should absolutely be blamed for the disaster that is the US Iraq policy. 

The stated reason for the United States invasion of Iraq was the existance of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Yet, they did not plan to secure the suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction sites in the country. You are right, this is old news, but it is a common story, because it has happened before:



			
				altercation.msnbc.com said:
			
		

> The failure to protect the very weapons that are going to kill our soldiers and those Iraqis not too terrified to work with us has a direct precedent.  Immediately after the invasionsomething achieved, by the way, with Bill Clintons military; the Bush administration did not have the time to screw it up yetthe Bush administration also left unguarded the very sites they insisted were housing Iraqi WMDS, (which leads one to the argument that either they knew they were lying or they didnt really care if our troops were attacked.  I cant decide which is worse).  This is from The Book on Bush and its about the period in the immediate aftermath of the invasion:
> Inexplicably, given its own arguments, the Bush administration did not bother to secure (or even inspect) those sites it had publicly identified to be the likely locus of nuclear weapons production.  In Karbala, U.S. forces left canisters of radioactive material stored openly at a maintenance site completely unguarded.  During the month between the beginning of the invasion and the American decision to undertake an investigation of what was inside it, local villagers plundered its contents, likely poisoning themselves and their families, owing to their unfamiliarity with the effects of radioactive materials or their lack of knowledge of its presence.  At another site, near Kut, the U.S. military again did not bother to secure the site for more than a month following the victory, also found a heavily looted nuclear site offering what the Barton Gellman described as fresh evidence that the war has dispersed the country's most dangerous technologies beyond anyone's knowledge or control.  Over all, fully seven separate sites said to be associated with the Iraqi nuclear program were left unguarded and unprotected by U.S. forces.  As a result, it became impossible to identify, with any certainty, what kinds of materials were being produced and what might be missing.  One Special Forces soldier who asked Gellman to identify him only as Tony, was shocked over what he was being asked to inspect.  "I don't believe this," he told his lieutenant on duty.  "They let workers in here for the past week!"​


​http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/

And, if you are going to evoke the spirits of Vietnam, a more accurate question might be ... "*How many United States soldiers died in the first 18 months of our involvment in Vietnam?*"


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 26, 2004)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> You claim i'm bouncing around the issue, but you are the one who is actually doing it.



Not at all.  The issue is that Iraq had a stockpile of dangerous explosives before the US invaded; now those explosives are missing.  We invaded Iraq to make the world safer from their WMDs; those WMDs have not been found, but other weapons they did have are now gone, and potentially in the hands of terrorists.

I didn't bring up the ad hominem attacks about who is reporting the news or when it's being reported.  _That_ is "bouncing around the issue".



			
				Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> You act like the "news" organizations are reporting this to keep the fine people of the US informed, but there only motivation for this was to keep Bush out of office again.  That's it.



The only motivation?  Do you have proof of this?



			
				Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> The weapons are gone.  They were gone before we got there.  Have they been used on American soil?  No.



If they ever are used on American soil, I'm sure you'll feel much better knowing that the issue was brought up by them durned liberal news organizations that hate Bush.



			
				Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> People want to flame Bush for the loss of +1000 lives in Iraq, what they should actually be doing is praise him that only that many people have died.



There you go bouncing around to a completely different topic again.

Given that Iraq had no WMDs and was not a threat to the United States, I find your logic lacking and your point both incorrect and irrelevant.



			
				Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> What was the life expectancy of a soldier in Vietnam?



How is this relevant to the weapons cache in Iraq?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 26, 2004)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> think people forget the fact that if the UN would have followed it's own rules, the whole IRAQ issue would a moot point.



Actually, the United Nations was following its own resolution, and inspecting Iraq to search for the "imminent threat" of weapons of mass destruction.  The United States ordered UN inspectors out of the country and invaded.  The United States then found out that Iraq's weapon stockpiles were gone.

The only forgetfulness I see here is that of conservatives, who forget the actual facts and events.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 26, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I guess it's UN policy to let them keep their explosives, just not use them for weapons.



Given that the explosives were not weapons of mass destruction, I don't see how this is a problem.




			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Funny how we blame the administration 100% but not the looters for the roadside and suicide bombings.



Can you give me an example of someone who blames the Bush Administration for attacks 100% with no blame whatsoever for the actual insurgents carrying them out?  Thanks.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> So, 3 weeks into the war, we were supposed to secure Iraq? People sure have a gooood impression of our military and how fast they can safely oust a regime.



I guess if we hadn't invaded the country based on lies, it wouldn't have been an issue.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Still a little too much gray area to say for certain it was all stolen after the war began...



On this, I think, we can agree.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 26, 2004)

Peach - I agree with part of what Jeff said.  The only reason the -mainstream- media does anything is to prop up their masters and undermine their competitions.  If they truely gave a lick about keeping us informed of things, they wouldn't be hiding by omision the 3rd partys positions.

This stuff is old news brought back up at a time that will do the most political damage.  It is questionable in it's accuracy as well.  

Now, lets look at the whole picture here.
Regardless of weither there were or weren't WMD or lots of conventional weapons at these locations, there were several failures of intellegence here (the thinking kind, not the info kind.)

The US basically blitzkrieged Iraq.  This allows for rapid advancement.  Where the Germans did it better was that in their plan, they secured as they went.  The US didn't.  This was due to lack of manpower.  This lack of manpower, failure to secure military and historical targets of importance point to a major flaw in the US battle plan.  The end result is that weapons caches were left unguarded and weapons were stolen.  Archeological treasures have been looted as well.  The historical items are turning up all over the world now.  The weapons are who knows where.  But, if ancient Babylonian tablets can turn up in the central US, having evaded customs in multiple nations as well as our own "strengthened" security here.....anyone want to guess just how many Iraqi weapons are now on the streets of the US, not to mention now being used against our troops still in Iraq?

I'll sum it up.  It sucks bigtime.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Oct 26, 2004)

How it sucks bigtime!


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 26, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Peach - I agree with part of what Jeff said.  The only reason the -mainstream- media does anything is to prop up their masters and undermine their competitions.



I don't dispute the mainstream media being around simply to prop up their masters and to make money...

I'm still not 100% convinced that the timing of this is *purely* political.  The triggering of this whole controversy came from the IAEA and the Iraqi interim government earlier this month.



			
				Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> The US basically blitzkrieged Iraq.  This allows for rapid advancement.  Where the Germans did it better was that in their plan, they secured as they went.



Sorry to gank the thread, but this is a common misunderstanding about German _blitzkrieg_ operations in the Second World War, and mobile operations in general.

As proposed by Guderian and Liddell Hart, mobile operations rely on _not_ taking the time to "secure as you go".  The whole concept is to knock your opponent off balance with overwhelming force at a location of your choosing, and to continue to drive to objectives before your opponent can recover and reorganize.  This will naturally stretch supply lines and extend your flanks... but your forces must be trained and equipped to repel concentric counterattack without blunting the force of your offensive.

Ideally, your armoured _schwerpunkt_ will be followed by mechanised infantry.

The great successes of German mobile warfare came when they recognized this, and failed when they either ignored it, or upset the balance too far.  For instance, during the invasion of Russia, the OKW failed to grasp the concepts of mobile warfare and forced the leading formations to turn back from Moscow too early to complete the attrition and destruction of isolated Soviet formations -- in essence, the OKW insisted upon the army "securing as they went".  By the time the Panzer forces were freed to continue the advance on Moscow, the weather was turning and it was too late -- the Soviet army had reorganized their defenses, and the initiative had been lost.

The opposite danger exists as well, as evidenced by Rommel in North Africa -- if you advance so quickly that you completely outstrip your ability to remain in supply, you are fodder for even the simplest counterattack.  This was not an issue of "securing as they went", but rather simply a complete misunderstanding of the importance of logistics.

The US strategy in Operation Iraqi Freedom exploited the key elements of mobile warfare -- it advanced rapidly, relying on motorized infantry forces in the rear to fend for themselves and protect the supply of the armoured _schwerpunkt._ 

Unfortunately, the US failed to also combine operations by airmobile and other forces to capture and secure key military and civilian installations that would contribute both to future stability and to the professed goal of ending the threat of WMD use and proliferation.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 26, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> All you really need are bomb casings, explosives, and chemical/biological agents to create WMD....if Libya had these, you know damn well Iraq did too.




How so?  Two countries with different economic sanctions leveled against them.  Why must we assume that Iraq has something that Libya has?  Libya's economic infrastructure wasn't damaged in a war in 1991.

According to the UN inspectors Iraq had no capacity for tooling up for making chemical weapons.  I believe that has been confirmed with post war inspections.

As to Mister Mike's question whether we were to secure Iraq in three weeks, no.  Of course not.   We could have secured the explosives mentioned in this thread and stockpiled uranium we knew about, however.  

In another thread ("Did We Have Justification") it was pointed out that the IAEA had a site loaded with unenriched uranium under guard and sealed prior to the invasion.  None of the IAEA seals were broken during the hiatus of the IAEA from Iraq from 1998-2002.  Following the invasion the IAEA returned to find the site looted and some of the nuclear material missing.  The guards had fled.  No US troops secured the site.

Now...combine THAT stuff with the explosives herein mentioned and you have a dirty bomb.  A nuclear weapon, but not a fissile bomb.  

_The US knew about these sites and failed to secure them._ 

This points out the incompetence of the administration...and frankly, the incompetence of the military commanders on the ground.  They had good intelligence on this stuff.  They knew where it was.  They knew what it was.  They didn't secure it.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 26, 2004)

I think we all might find David Kay's statement relevent to this discussion. Listen for it in the 'biased media'. Of course, you will all recall that David Kay was George W. Bush's man in Iraq searching for the Weapons of Mass Destruction (i.e. head of the Iraq Survey Group). He left the job before it was completed, but he wasn't very pleased about the fact that there weren't any Weapons of Mass Destruction. See Duelfur Report.

His quote was most enlightening. 

He obviously is a member of the 'biased mainstream media'.

I heard the quote on the news while driving home this evening. I can't find a link at the moment, but I'll keep lookin' ... Keep Listening.


----------



## TwistofFat (Oct 27, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> _The US knew about these sites and failed to secure them._
> 
> This points out the incompetence of the administration...and frankly, the incompetence of the military commanders on the ground. They had good intelligence on this stuff. They knew where it was. They knew what it was. They didn't secure it.
> 
> ...


Steve - I am not sure any of this is definitive proof of incompetence on the military or planners role. We will know only years from now what really happened and with repsect to David Kaye and CBS (and the embeds from NBC for that matter), their word is one version that is disbuted as this juncture.
What they knew and what was happening on the ground is again disbuted. Since the Turkish route had been closed to the US and Al-Qaqaa is south of Baghdad, troups were indeed less than planned.
I also understand Task Force 75 (resp. for finding and disarming) was busy with other sites that amounted to hundreds of thousands of tons of material so while the site with 380 tons (4 truck loads - many that required fork lifts just to move) had been bombed (albeit from the air) several times, it was lower on the priority list. 

I am not dismissing the RDX and MDX at all and lament its use on anyone anywhere - period. (I put this by itself so I can avoid the replies to the contrary from some of the others less esteemed folks on the board- I doubt it will be read).

Some of our strong allies (like the Dutch) found and secured stockpiles of 180-500 tons that were identified prior to the invasion (Al Quarnah) ("hey everybody, I'm from Holland. Isn't that weird" - Goldmember...sorry), but from Basra to Baghdad in April was a hot zone in every sense. My understanding is that even with additional troups, Al Quqaa (kaakaa) would have been hard to secure until end of May.

Regards - Glenn.


----------



## MisterMike (Oct 27, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Given that the explosives were not weapons of mass destruction, I don't see how this is a problem.



The explosives were not meant for anything BUT weapons. Iraq didn't need them because nobody was going to invade them, well, except us. If you hadn't noticed, they're not exactly using them to blast through rock to make roads.



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Can you give me an example of someone who blames the Bush Administration for attacks 100% with no blame whatsoever for the actual insurgents carrying them out?  Thanks.



Look up in the thread. Lots of Administration listings, no looters, well except for mine.



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I guess if we hadn't invaded the country based on lies, it wouldn't have been an issue.



Yea, the lies thing is a little old. Misinformation, I could see, but I'm just not one of the cool dudes on the other side of the political fence. *yawn*


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 27, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> If you hadn't noticed, they're not exactly using them to blast through rock to make roads.



True, but we didn't go to the UN to get permission to invade over high explosive, grenades, assault rifles, tanks, etc etc.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Look up in the thread. Lots of Administration listings, no looters, well except for mine.



That's because:

1) It's obvious that terrorists and insurgents are the ones committing the acts
2) My nation doesn't sponsor the terrorists and insurgents; my nation was responsible for the invasion of Iraq, and its security during and afterward

The idea that not specifically pointing out the evils of murdering looters and insurgents reduces the validity of criticisms of the administration or the coalition military is really a distracting straw-man.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Yea, the lies thing is a little old. Misinformation, I could see, but I'm just not one of the cool dudes on the other side of the political fence. *yawn*



I find the lies thing a little old, too, since there's plenty of evidence to show that the administration had a jones for Iraq since day one, and that they ignored evidence given to them by the intelligence community that contradicted their position.  One can examine that evidence regardless of political affiliation.

But, that's the topic of (many) other threads


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 27, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> The explosives were not meant for anything BUT weapons. Iraq didn't need them because nobody was going to invade them, well, except us. If you hadn't noticed, they're not exactly using them to blast through rock to make roads.


Actually Mike, the chemicals may very well have been used to 'make roads'. One of the reports I have read on the subject indicated that some 35 tons of the material was dispersed between 1998, when UNSCOM, the United Nations Special Commission left Iraq under protest, and 2002, when UNMOVIC, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, returned to Iraq. The reports given to UNMOVICE was that the chemicals were going to be used by concrete factories to blast stone to build roads. 

Now, we can certainly take such an explanation with a measure of skepticism. Perhaps all, some, or possibly even none of the chemicals were used for such a purpose, but then again, Iraq seemed to have been telling the truth when they said the have no Weapons of Mass Destruction, right?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Perhaps all, some, or possibly even none of the chemicals were used for such a purpose, but then again, Iraq seemed to have been telling the truth when they said the have no Weapons of Mass Destruction, right?



Michael, you're so silly -- believing Iraq, UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, and the United States' own weapons inspection teams over the claims of the Bush Administration.


----------



## MisterMike (Oct 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Perhaps all, some, or possibly even none of the chemicals were used for such a purpose, but then again, Iraq seemed to have been telling the truth when they said the have no Weapons of Mass Destruction, right?



Yes, but it's kind of like the boy who cried wolf. Iraq had no credibility with us. You can cry the truth, but with their history, it wasn't going to help. Especially with the information (as erroneous as it was) given to the Administration from the CIA.

Sucks that it wasn't there, in a way, but now we're more than knee-deep in it.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 27, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Yes, but it's kind of like the boy who cried wolf. Iraq had no credibility with us. You can cry the truth, but with their history, it wasn't going to help. Especially with the information (as erroneous as it was) given to the Administration from the CIA.
> 
> Sucks that it wasn't there, in a way, but now we're more than knee-deep in it.




The administration knew better, Mr. Mike.  Have you not seen the pre-9-11 footage of Rice and Powell stating-very clearly-that Iraq was no threat?  

In the thread "Did We Have Justification" I provided a link to an article in the e-zine "In These Times" titled "They Knew."  In it the authors cite numerous instances where the intelligence community (inlcuding the CIA) stated that Iraq had no WMD's.  One can connect with the news articles referenced by clicking on the hyperlinks.

The administration knew well ahead of time that there was no cogent, justifiable reason for war with Iraq.  A number of conservatives recognize this.  

Regards,


Steve


----------



## MisterMike (Oct 27, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The administration knew better, Mr. Mike.  Have you not seen the pre-9-11 footage of Rice and Powell stating-very clearly-that Iraq was no threat?
> 
> In the thread "Did We Have Justification" I provided a link to an article in the e-zine "In These Times" titled "They Knew."  In it the authors cite numerous instances where the intelligence community (inlcuding the CIA) stated that Iraq had no WMD's.  One can connect with the news articles referenced by clicking on the hyperlinks.
> 
> ...



Yes, but this is the same CIA that suspected Iraq would be capable of making WMD's before too long and also could not account for thousands of pounds of chemical weapons (yes the ones we know he had because he bought them from us, etc.).

My belief, is that it is harder to prove someone does not have any weapons, and easier to say that they still might have them since we knew Iraq was heading that way and had some in the past.

So, yes, the administration could cherry-pick what tidbits they wanted to build a case, but on the flip side, the CIA could not say definitively there were none, by my standards. (Yes, I know the inspections were ended prematurely)

Bottom line, if you want mine, I still think we needed to get in and oust Saddam. I don't like how the case was put to the country in the President's speech. With time, it could have been justified by other means. (Continued UN non-compliance, etc.) In the end, I think the President took the action that would have been inevitable because he wants to keep the country safe.

Lieing is not defendable. Making mistakes always looks worse in hindsight. How bad it looks to the nation will be determined this election. I'm not a Republican, although I do like a few things this president has done in the last 4 years. There are actually more that I dislike. I think the only reason I post about the war is because I see comments that are really more politically driven but had it been "their guy" things would have been different. I only wish to offer an honest opinion, not to come off as the "devil's advocate" or as a full-fledged Bush supporter.

Well...Don't want thread drift so I'll stop there.
Thanks for reading.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 28, 2004)

MisterMike's comments in bold.

*Yes, but this is the same CIA that suspected Iraq would be capable of making WMD's before too long and also could not account for thousands of pounds of chemical weapons (yes the ones we know he had because he bought them from us, etc.).*

In February 2001, the CIA delivered a report to the White House that said: We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs. The report was so definitive that Secretary of State Colin Powell issued the quote below.


"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." 

Colin Powell in Cairo February 24, 2001


The footage of  Powell saying the above can be found at:

http://www.ejectbush.com/


*So, yes, the administration could cherry-pick what tidbits they wanted to build a case, but on the flip side, the CIA could not say definitively there were none, by my standards. (Yes, I know the inspections were ended prematurely)*

See the report listed above.  Take note of the following...

The National Intelligence Estimate did not list Iraq as possessing WMD's.  It wasn't mentioned.  It wasn't an issue.

In January of 2002 the State Department's intelligence bureau said that evidence did not add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what [we] consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons.

In March 2003, IAEA Director Mohammed El Baradei said there was no proof Iraq had nuclear weapons and added documents which formed the basis for [the White Houses assertion] of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic.   This proved true...but Cheney said at the time Baradei was wrong.

The Defense Intelligence Agency had submitted a report to the administration finding no reliable information to prove Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons. That conclusion was similar to the findings of a 1998 government commission on WMD chaired by Rumsfeld. 

The Air Forces National Air and Space Intelligence Center debunked the idea that the drones Iraq had could be used as delivery systems for WMD's.



-----

The administration  did more than just "cherry pick" away at the information. They ignored evidence that undermined their case.  

As for proving there were no weapons...had we been patient, the proof we now have would have been the truth we would have discovered 1,111 lives ago.




Regards,



Steve


----------



## TwistofFat (Oct 28, 2004)

I thought we were talking about the Al Kaakaaa facility?  If is found that the Russians moved the stockpiles into Syria will that be incompetence on the administrations part?  Should they have hit those 40+ trucks with missles prior to the Senates second vote?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 28, 2004)

TwistofFat said:
			
		

> I thought we were talking about the Al Kaakaaa facility? If is found that the Russians moved the stockpiles into Syria will that be incompetence on the administrations part? Should they have hit those 40+ trucks with missles prior to the Senates second vote?


I thought I saw reports that the IEAE confirmed the seals were intact on March 15, 2003. The invasion began on March 20, 2003. Of course, our special forces were in country by the 15th anyhow. 

I have to imagine our 'eye-in-the-sky' was watching and would have noticed 40+ tractor-trailers. 

Now, I have not watched this story as closely as I would like ... But, I think the IAEA reports may be a little more credible than Sun Yun Moons' Washington Times. 

Is there anyone else reporting the Russion Connection?


----------



## TwistofFat (Oct 28, 2004)

Michael,

Honestly have not had time to look it up.  I do find the Reverened Moon's weddings lovely...are the announcements covered in The Times?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 29, 2004)

ABC News had embedded journalists with the military that have disputed the chemicals were moved prior to the United States taking control of the facility. They broadcast a video showing HMX barrels an U.N. sealed doors in April of 2003.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847



> Oct. 28, 2004  The strongest evidence to date indicates that conventional explosives missing from Iraq's Al-Qaqaa installation disappeared after the United States had taken control of Iraq.
> 
> Barrels inside the Al-Qaqaa facility appear on videotape shot by ABC television affiliate KSTP of St. Paul, Minn., which had a crew embedded with the 101st Airborne Division when it passed through Al-Qaqaa on April 18, 2003  nine days after Baghdad fell.
> Experts who have studied the images say the barrels on the tape contain the high explosive HMX, and the U.N. markings on the barrels are clear.
> ...




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



			
				excerpt said:
			
		

> . . .
> The photographs are consistent with what I know of Al-Qaqaa, David A. Kay, a former American official who directed the hunt in Iraq for unconventional weapons and visited the site, told The New York Times. The damning thing is the seals. The Iraqis didnt use seals on anything. So Im absolutely sure thats an IAEA seal. . . .
> 
> Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld entered the debate Thursday, suggesting the 377 tons of explosives were taken away before U.S. forces arrived, saying any large effort to loot the material afterward would have been detected.
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2004)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> Boy the democrats and their conspiracies...
> 
> Guess what?  This stuff was missing along time ago.  From the Drudgereport:
> 
> ...



Not true.  Two journalists from ABC affilliate KSTP shot video of the facility nine days after the fall of Bahgdad.  One of the journalists, Joe McCaffrey points out the markings on the crates for the facility and the IAEA seals on the crates.  The video also shows that the south side of the camp was well guarded, but the northside was weakly watched.  

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> ABC News had embedded journalists with the military that have disputed the chemicals were moved prior to the United States taking control of the facility. They broadcast a video showing HMX barrels an U.N. sealed doors in April of 2003.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847
> 
> ...



Dang It Mike!  Ya beat me to it!


----------



## TwistofFat (Oct 29, 2004)

(From NRO - http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200410282152.asp)  Normally take NRO with a shaker of nacl, but valid questions).

Problem one: Take a look at the orange label on the container, in this photo.
It says, EXPLOSIV EXPLOSIVE 1.1 D 1. (The same label can be purchased here.)

There are three explosives we are looking for here:

HMX, cyclotetramethylene-*tetra*nitramine, also called Tetrahexamine Tetranitramine 
RDX, Cyclotrimethylene *trini*tramine, and

PETN, Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate
​
According to this chart from GlobalSecurity.org, the 1.1D classification can be used for the storage and transport of quite a few high powered explosives. Among them are:

Cyclotetramethylene-*tetra*nitramine, wetted or HMX, wetted or Octogen, wetted with not less than 15 percent water, by mass 
Cyclotrimethylene-*trini*tramine, wetted or Cyclonite, wetted or Hexogen, wetted or RDX, wetted with not less than 15 percent water by mass

Pentaerythrite tetranitrate, wetted or Pentaerythritol tetranitrate, wetted, or PETN, wetted with not less than 25 percent water, by mass, or Pentaerythrite tetranitrate, or Pentaerythritol tetranitrate, or PETN, desensitized with not less than 15 percent phlegmatizer by mass.
​
So - this orange 1.1 D is the label we would look for on HMX, RDX, or PETN. But did those explosives in these containers have 15 or 25 percent water or other dilution liquid in them? Or did they look pretty dry in that desert?

And as we look at the rest of that chart, we see that a lot of other explosives that fall in the 1.1 D category. 

Specifically there are 79 other substances and types of explosive material and supporting equipment that would get the 1.1 D label, including gunpowder, flexible detonating cord, photo-flash bombs, mines, nitroglycerin, rocket warheads, grenades, fuzes, torpedoes and charges. And few of them require any liquid dilution.

Is whats on this news report video HMX, RDX, or PETN? Possibly, if the material inside is some sort of diluting liquid that we didnt see on the tape, or if the Iraqis were storing these high-grade explosives in an unsafe manner. Or it could be one of the 79 other substances. Or some containers could have the big three, and some could have others.

As usual, it is foolish for folks to jump in and conclude that they know what was in the containers without gathering all of the facts. How many Kerry-backing writers who will cite this video as a smoking gun are familiar with what materials are classified 1.1D?

Problem two: This doesnt quite explain the internal IAEA documents ABC reported that suggested that significant amounts were gone before the invasion began. Confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility  a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported. It all suddenly came back before the war? Or is what were seeing in the video three tons?

Problem three: This doesnt quite explain the Pentagons satellite photos of large numbers of trucks leaving the facilities before the war.

Problem four: This doesnt quite explain how all this could be taken down a road full of heavily armed U.S. forces, under skies full of coalition warplanes. The Pentagon called the removal of that much material from the facility during or after the war very highly improbable:

Col. David Perkins commanded the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, the division that led the charge into Baghdad. Those troops first captured the Iraqi weapons depot from which 377 tons of explosives disappeared. 
Two major roads that pass near the 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, the colonel said. 

Perkins and others in the military acknowledged that some looting at the site had taken place. But he said a large-scale operation to remove the explosives using trucks almost certainly would have been detected.
​
Problem five: This doesnt quite explain why none of this explosive has to date shown up in any Iraqi insurgent attack.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 29, 2004)

TwistofFat said:
			
		

> As usual, it is foolish for folks to jump in and conclude that they know what was in the containers without gathering all of the facts. How many Kerry-backing writers who will cite this video as a smoking gun are familiar with what materials are classified 1.1D?


Yes ... Kerry-backing writers like  ..... David Kay (former head of the Iraq Survey Group, the team tasked by President Bush to find the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction)

Yes, there are many unanswered questions ... but ... there is an old saying in Tennessee ... well, in Texas ... maybe it's in Tennesse too ... 

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck .... You can't fool me again.


----------



## TwistofFat (Oct 29, 2004)

Like I said Mike...a shaker of salt.  I did not selectivly edit the link, but the questions are valid.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 29, 2004)

I thought this was an interesting analysis of Republican defenses of the issue of the explosives.

*For Bush, Too Late for Honesty*

Missing munitions spark an explosion of administration excuses.

Jonathan Chait

On Monday morning, the New York Times reported that 380 tons of powerful explosives had disappeared from a military complex in Iraq that the American military didn't safeguard. An honest supporter of President Bush would reply to this by arguing that, despite this mistake, there are plenty of good reasons to reelect him anyway.

The week before the election, though, is too late for honesty, especially for a campaign so committed to the infallibility of its candidate. And so Bush and his allies have been forced to argue that no, neglecting to guard a lifetime supply of bomb-making material does not in any way reflect poorly on Bush's military strategy. Indeed, if anybody is tainted here, it's Kerry. This exercise in defending the indefensible offers a kind of morbid hilarity. So far, I count seven distinct lines of argument:

*1. Look at the bright side.* Kerry, insists Vice President Dick Cheney, fails to "mention the 400,000 tons of weapons and explosives that our troops have captured and are destroying." This is sort of like arguing, "Your honor, the record should reflect the countless times I've driven to work without swerving onto the sidewalk and mowing down dozens of pedestrians."

*2. Consider the source.* Why, Republicans ask, are we finding out just now about this? Well, for starters, it was less than two weeks ago that the International Atomic Energy Agency informed our government of the lost explosives. A Wall Street Journal editorial imputed dark motives to the fact that the information leaked, without explaining why the U.S. government was keeping it secret in the first place, or why the fact that it leaked detracts from the substance of the story.

*3. Don't judge.* As the Journal pleaded, "Some 380 tons of frightfully powerful stuff has gone missing, and the objective before us should be to locate it, not locate blame." In other words, the military can't search for the bombs unless the voters withhold judgment about Bush.

*4. Kerry reads newspapers.* "What would he do as president? Get up every morning and say, 'I'm going to govern based on what I find in the newspapers?' " sneered Karl Rove. "John Kerry will say anything he believes will help him politically," wrote Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman, "and today he is grasping at headlines to obscure his record of weakness and indecision in the war on terror." The horror  Kerry is letting world news infect his judgment. 

*5. Kerry's a hypocrite.* "After repeatedly calling Iraq the wrong war and a diversion," Bush declared, "Sen. Kerry this week seemed shocked to learn that Iraq was a dangerous place full of dangerous weapons." This is a bizarre inversion of reality. Bush justified the war primarily as a way to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists, yet his handling of it led to exactly that result. 

*6. Kerry hates the troops.* "The senator is denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in the field," Bush insisted. By this logic, any criticism of Bush's military plan amounts to blaming the troops. By the same Orwellian logic, statements like the one from Bush supporter Rudy Giuliani  "The actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough?"  do not count as blaming the troops.

*7. It was like that when we got here.* Republicans seized on an NBC News report that a U.S. Army brigade had inspected the site in April 2003 and found no weapons. This claim fell apart after NBC and the brigade commander said the Americans merely stopped at the site without inspecting it. Bush and his allies have since retreated to claiming that the explosives may have been moved before the war started. This is possible, though highly unlikely. David Kay, the man Bush chose to search for WMD in Iraq, said such a transfer probably would have been detected by U.S. satellites. And KSTP, a Minneapolis TV station that had staff embedded with troops who went into the area, has footage of U.S. troops coming across what look to weapons inspectors very much like the explosives in question, cracking open locks and then departing. There have been reports of systematic looting since.

But even in the unlikely event that the weapons disappeared before the war, it would hardly forgive Bush's policy of invading without enough troops to secure vital weapons caches. The point is that he didn't plan for the peace, which included safeguarding weapons. Suppose it turned out that the pedestrians struck by our reckless driver all suffered fatal heart attacks moments before they were run over. Sure, the driver would be exonerated of their deaths. But as far as evaluating his driving skills  or Bush's war-planning skills  it makes no difference at all.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2004)

Check it out AP/Fox/CNN:

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

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

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

Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita acknowledged the Defense Department (search) did not have all the answers and could not yet account for all of the missing explosives, but stressed that the major's disclosure was a significant development in unraveling the mystery.

"We've described what we know, and as we know more we'll describe that," said DiRita.

Pearson, accompanied by DiRita, appeared at a Pentagon news conference and said his team's mission in April 2003 was to clear material from the Al-Qaqaa facility in order to secure it for U.S. forces. He admitted he was not an explosives expert.


The IAEA reported the disappearance of the explosives to the United Nations on Monday, suggesting they had fallen into the hands of looters after American troops had swept through the area.

U.S. military officials have retorted that they suspect the munitions were removed by Iraqis before Saddam was ousted from power on April 9, 2003.

The officer's story came the morning after new videotape surfaced supporting the contention that the explosives were still at the base following Saddam's fall.

Videotape shot by a Minnesota television crew traveling with U.S. troops in Iraq on April 18, 2003 shows what appeared to be high explosives still in barrels bearing IAEA seals.

The video was taken by a reporter and cameraman employed by KSTP, an ABC affiliate in St. Paul. It was broadcast nationally Thursday on the ABC national network.

"The photographs are consistent with what I know of Al-Qaqaa," David A. Kay, the former American official who directed the hunt in Iraq for unconventional weapons and visited the site, told The New York Times. "The damning thing is the seals. The Iraqis didn't use seals on anything. So I'm absolutely sure that's an IAEA seal."

The Pentagon late Thursday released a satellite photograph of Al-Qaqaa taken on March 17, 2003, just before the war. It showed showing several bunkers, one with two tractor-trailers next to it.

Senior Defense officials said their photo shows that the Al-Qaqaa facility "was not hermetically sealed" after international weapons inspectors had paid their last visits to the facility earlier in the month.

Officials were analyzing the image and others for clues into when the nearly 380 tons of explosives were taken. The munitions included HMX and RDX, key components in plastic explosives, which insurgents in Iraq have used in bomb attacks.

The Pentagon insisted that the image shows the Iraqis were moving something at the site before the first U.S.-launched bombs fell.

Meanwhile, an IAEA report obtained by FOX News said the inspectors noted that despite the fact that the Al-Qaqaa bunkers were locked, ventilation shafts remained open and provided easy access to the explosives.

The IAEA can definitively say only that the documented ammunition was at the facility in January; in March, an agency spokesman conceded, inspectors only checked the locked bunker doors.

The question of what happened to the explosives has become a major issue in the closing days of the 2004 presidential campaign.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry says the missing explosives  powerful enough to demolish a building, bring down a jetliner or even trigger a nuclear weapon  are another example of the Bush administration's poor planning and incompetence in handling the war in Iraq.

President Bush says the explosives were possibly removed by Saddam's forces before the invasion.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld entered the debate Thursday, suggesting the 377 tons of explosives were taken away before U.S. forces arrived, saying any large effort to loot the material afterward would have been detected.

"We would have seen anything like that," he said in one of two radio interviews he gave at the Pentagon. "The idea it was suddenly looted and moved out, all of these tons of equipment, I think is at least debatable."

The bunker with the trucks parked next to it in the Pentagon's satellite image is not one known to have contained any of the missing explosives, and Defense spokesman DiRita said Thursday the image only shows that there was some Iraqi activity at the base on March 17.

DiRita acknowledged that the image says nothing about what happened to the explosives.

Rumsfeld, in one radio interview, also cast doubt on the suggestion by one of his subordinates that Russian soldiers assisted Iraqis in removing the munitions.

The Washington Times on Thursday quoted John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, who said he believed Russian special-forces personnel, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material from Al-Qaqaa.

Shaw said he believed the munitions were moved to Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 invasion.

Senior Defense officials urged caution over the Washington Times article because they could not verify its allegations as true.

"I have no information on that at all, and cannot validate that even slightly," Rumsfeld said.

The article prompted an angry denial from Moscow.

At the core of the issue is whether the explosives were moved before or after U.S. forces reached that part of the country in early April.

No one has been able to provide conclusive evidence either way, although Iraqi officials blamed the munitions' disappearance on poor U.S. security after Baghdad fell.

The Pentagon has said it is looking into the matter, and officials note that 400,000 tons of recovered Iraqi munitions have either been destroyed or are slated to be destroyed.

FOX News' Bret Baier, Ian McCaleb and The Associated Press contributed to this report.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 7, 2004)

This just in . . . . 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6424036/



			
				excerpt said:
			
		

> Missing antiaircraft missiles alarm aides
> Up to 4,000 surface-to-air missiles unaccounted for in Iraq
> WASHINGTON - Several thousand shoulder-fired missiles  the kind that could be used to shoot down aircraft  are missing in Iraq, and their disappearance has prompted U.S. military and intelligence analysts to increase sharply their estimate of the number of such weapons that may be at large, administration officials said yesterday.
> 
> ...


----------

