My respected friends: Q, BillVon, Kallend, et al.

[Deuce 1]

What about this latest story about the stolen explosives?

Yeah, they were stolen, and it appears it may have happened before the US was in control of the bunkers.

I am not attempting to Gotcha! you. I'm just not getting the current thrust of info.

With regard to this specific issue, are the reports valid and relevant?

I voted today via permanent absentee. I am guessing you guys have already voted, or at least have solidified your positions.

There are lots of relevant reasons for liberals to be hostile towards the Bush administration. I'm really wondering if this new (old) issue has traction.

Folks, I don't care about much else than the thinking of folks who believe that Bush dropped the ball in Iraq, and let the (terrorists?) take possession of the explosives.

[mnischalke 0]

The story evolves...

Quote

Pentagon responds to missing-explosives report


By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


The Pentagon said yesterday that 380 tons of missing explosives from an Iraqi munitions facility may have been moved before U.S. troops overran the area during the invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

The statement came after a joint project by CBS' "60 Minutes" and the New York Times reported that the Iraqi government has told the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that the stockpile of material for plastic explosives went missing during postwar looting. The IAEA did not publicly reveal the issue of missing explosives until after the CBS-Times report.

But Pentagon officials said yesterday that Iraq had already admitted to breaking the IAEA seals and moving tons of the explosives from the Al Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad, before U.N. inspectors re-entered the country in 2002. Officials said the rest of the explosives stockpiles may have been removed and hidden before the arrival of American troops.

That explanation was bolstered last night by a report from NBC News, which said the weapons already were missing when their embedded reporter arrived at the site on April 10, 2003.

"NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they [took] over the weapons installation south of Baghdad. But they never found the 380 tons" of missing explosives, the network reported.

A Pentagon statement said troops searched the Al Qaqaa site during and after major combat. They searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings, the Pentagon said, but found no weapons of mass destruction or any material under IAEA seal.

"Although some believe the Al Qaqaa facility may have been looted, there is no way to verify this," the Pentagon said. "Another explanation is that regime loyalists or others emptied the facility prior to coalition forces arriving in Baghdad in April."

The "60 Minutes-New York Times report said Pentagon officials acknowledged the material disappeared after Baghdad fell. But Pentagon and White House officials said yesterday they do not know when the explosives went missing and have asked the CIA's Iraqi Survey Group to investigate.

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.

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts seized on yesterday's report as evidence of "the unbelievable blindness, stubbornness, arrogance" of the Bush administration.

"George W. Bush, who talks tough, talks tough and brags about making America safer, has once again failed to deliver," he said at a rally in Dover, N.H. "After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in iraq, this president failed to guard those stockpiles."

Joe Lockhart, an adviser to Mr. Kerry, told reporters on a conference call yesterday that is not an indictment of the troops fighting in Iraq, but of their civilian leadership; a point Mr. Kerry made as well.

"They have been doing their job courageously and honorably. The problem is the commander in chief has not been doing his," Mr. Kerry said. "These are the very errors of judgment that are supposed to be avoided by a wise president."

But Bush spokesman Steve Schmidt said the NBC report, which he distributed to reporters, disproved Mr. Kerry.

"John Kerry today launched attacks against the president that have been proven false before the day is over," he said. "John Kerry's attacks today were baseless. He said American troops did not secure the explosives, when the explosives were already missing."

Unlike the Pentagon, White House spokesman Scott McClellan did not dispute the timeline presented by the Iraqi government on when the material was missing. Instead, he focused on the tough task some 140,000 American troops faced when Baghdad fell.

"There were munitions caches spread throughout Iraq at the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. That's why I pointed out the large volume of munitions that have already been destroyed and the large volume that are on line to be destroyed. The sites now are the responsibility of the Iraqi government to secure."

Iraq has a history of moving armaments to evade detection by the United Nations. During U.N. inspections after the first Gulf war in 1991, the Iraqi Intelligence Service was seen in surveillance photographs clearing out facilities before inspectors arrived.

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.

Mr. ElBaradei told the Security Council yesterday he was informed Oct. 1 by the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology that the explosives were lost after April 9, 2003, throughout the theft and looting of the government installations due to lack of security.

Stephen Dinan, traveling with Sen. John Kerry's campaign, contributed to this story.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[TheAnvil 0]

I have heard reports that the explosives were gone before the US troops arrived, but that's really non-sequitur.

The decision to guard or not guard a dump/site is one that is tactical in nature. The President of the United States has no business making tactical decisions in an armed conflict - that's for military commanders to make. That's one reason I laughed so hard at Kerry during one of the debates when he claimed he would have guarded the dumps. Fidiot.

Dunno if this helps or not.

I just voted via Florida's early voting system. Quite easy. I voted for GWB and Mel Martinez - among others.

Beers to all,

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[quade 4]

Here is the crux of the matter . . .

Quote

Yeah, they were stolen, and it appears it may have happened before the US was in control of the bunkers.

The issue is NOBODY on our side knows for certain exactly when they were stolen.

With all of our expertise and satellite intel in knowing storage facilities in Iraq, you'd think we'd sort of know that.

They were there at a point before we entered the country.
They were gone at a point after we entered the country.

They were on a list of about 500 sites that needed to be protected, but it appears as if there was nobody protecting them from the time we entered the country until we discovered they were not there. Troops where in the general area, but not specifically guarding the site.

Does the issue have traction? Only if us at home or our troops abroad are massively hit in the next week. By massively, I mean all 18 or so trucks are backed up to the "Green Zone" and set off en masse. Small bombings can't be directly linked to the larger amounts, so, like I said, unless it's a massive attack, the Admin, even if actually responsible for the loss of the explosives, will get off.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

They were there at a point before we entered the country.
They were gone at a point after we entered the country.

So what you're saying is it's possible for 380 tons of explosives to dissapear out of thin air but not WMDs. Got it. Thanks.

Forty-two

[Deuce 1]

Thank you, Paul. That makes sense.

Like I said, I've voted (ineffective Electoral Collegiates for Bush!) but I think you are right, and I think that Al Quaida is that smart.

I do suspect, though, that the national conscious of the US is very fundamentally different from Spain, for example. If they blow up a bunch of soldiers like in Beirut, they will guarantee a Bush landslide.

[quade 4]

No. You and other people saying this don't "got it".

The location of these explosives where known to all.

Let's say you're in a room with an enemy.
BOTH of you know there is a gun in the desk drawer.
You -think- there might be a better gun somewhere else in the room.

Do you let the other guy grab the known gun while you look for the gun you -think- is there?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[TheAnvil 0]

See my post above about Presidential involvement in such things.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[quade 4]

So, then you don't believe the Commander in Chief of the military forces of the United States of America . . . is responsible for what the military does?

What's the old saying about the Captain going down with his ship?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

The issue is NOBODY on our side knows for certain exactly when they were stolen.

That's stretching it a bit, don't you think? According to "impartial" witnesses, whatever was there years before, was not there days after the invasion. And, if we're led to believe that Al Qaida was NOT in Iraq or working with Iraqis prior to the war, then it must have been the Iraqis who moved them, right?

Quote

Officials said the rest of the explosives stockpiles may have been removed and hidden before the arrival of American troops.

That explanation was bolstered last night by a report from NBC News, which said the weapons already were missing when their embedded reporter arrived at the site on April 10, 2003.

"NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they [took] over the weapons installation south of Baghdad. But they never found the 380 tons" of missing explosives, the network reported.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[TheAnvil 0]

Not at all. I find the left's insinuation to pin blame for tactical errors on the administration most puerile and inane. Do you blame Jefferson Davis for Pickett's Charge? Or Lincoln for McClellan and Burnside's many blunders?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[tunaplanet 0]

You must have a huge field of apple and orange trees in your backyard. That was about the worst comparison I have ever seen on these forums to date.

Quote

The location of these explosives where known to all.

That proves my point even more. We lose track of 380 tons of weapons we knew about but you're content the same people searched the country thoroughly for WMDs?

Forty-two

[quade 4]

Which brings up yet another point that you and I are going to disagree on . . . I don't think guarding or otherwise destroying these weapons would be a tactical decision at all but rather a strategic one.

Maybe it's a difference in the use of the words. I have always understood the word strategic to basically mean long term planning and tactical as dealing with a current situation.

Again, since we KNEW these explosives where supposed to be at this site, I'd call it a fairly large strategic mistake to allow them to be looted. At the very least we should have sent somebody to check them out immediately.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Deuce 1]

Qdio, I think I am much wierder than you imagine.

First, I am faster and more lethal than my enemy. I am a stupendous badass. If it's me, I am glad to give my enemy the impression that he has the advantage.

He's got half a billion pounds of high explosive, he is the biggest thing ever to happen in his world. That is a big deal. The biggest deal in local history.

He is nada mucho in my world.

I don't think he is much of a threat in John Kerry's world either.

It's about placement. They are not likely to be able to place it anywhere effective. If they manage to kill another 3000 people in a nice suburban mall, I don't think that Bush will be to blame. I don't think Kerry would have done anything much different.

Other than I think that at some level, Bush understands guys like me a little better than Kerry. I don't think Kerry would allow guys like me in his house. I am all about the killing of the people who would kill me and my family and my friends before they killed a single one of my friends or family.

I really think that is the difference.

That we must wait to find the proof of hostility through murder, rather than killing the enemy on their professed intent.

Radical Islam requires the murder/subjugation of my women.

I get all crazy about that.

P.S. OK, I reread all that and I want to clarify that I don't wear my hardassedness out in the open. I also am not bluffing. I think that when the knuckleheads admit (if it's true) that they have a zillion pound of HE, that they will be smartbombed to hell.

And I will point and laugh.

Paul, back to you. And I appreciate your thoughtful response. So if they have all that coolio HE, is Kerry a better responder to that threat? If there is a serious terrorist threat that now has a zillion pounds of explosive, is Kerry Edwards the best American response?

PPS: Anyone who has met me will know I am nowhere near this camo-badass in person. Heck, I'm a 3rd grade girls CYO basketball coach!

[quade 4]

What if we lost the 380 tons of weapons because we were searching for mythical WMDs?

Wait, come to think of it, that's exactly what my analogy was.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

What if we lost the 380 tons of weapons because we were searching for mythical WMDs?

What if they have WMDs and we haven't found them yet? What if there were never WMDs? What if Bigfoot snuck into the desert and stole the WMDs?

We can play the, "what if" games until the cows come home.

Forty-two

[quade 4]

With all respect, you can't be much wierder than I think you are.

Seriously though. You don't think .38 kilotons of explosives is enough to make a dent in the Green Zone? It has to have some sort of border accessible somewhere.

Or what if they loaded it up in shipping containers headed for NYC? Something like 95% of all shipping containers enter the US totally unsearched and totally uninspected.

I'm NOT saying that anyone can do anything about anything in this case, but I can gurantee that if all of the explosives went off in one place all at the same time before November 3, it would definately have an effect.

You asked if this "thing" had any traction . . . that's where I was going.

UNLESS something like that happens before the election . . . then as stated before, it's probably not going to have repercussions other than for those directly involved in the bombing ('cause like, there ain't no way to really trace it).

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

We can play the, "what if" games until the cows come home.

Of this . . . I am certain.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Deuce 1]

Quote

UNLESS something like that happens before the election . . . then as stated before, it's probably not going to have repercussions other than for those directly involved in the bombing ('cause like, there ain't no way to really trace it).

OK, cool. We acknowledge my wierdness and violence.

This may be a situation that does not change votes. I think that is significant, as this is an issue late in the game, according to the libs.

How does this affect the swing voters? Q, BillV?

I care less and less. I think that if Kerry wins the White House we will have a totally ineffective Presidency. I prefer that to an effective Bush Presidency, which would cost us all a lot of money.

[billvon 3,119]

>What about this latest story about the stolen explosives?

You mean, what do I think about it?

I think that, around January, the IAEA found a lot of high explosives at a base in Iraq (Al Qaqaa) and sealed it off, because PETN and the like are important in the construction of nuclear initiators. Before we invaded, all the UN people in charge of verifying that seal were evacuated, and Saddam started preparing for war. He may well have tried to move that stuff somewhere else. It's unlikely; he had bigger problems than what to do with spare explosives. It's even more unlikely that, even had he ordered anyone to do anything, they would have done it - his country was falling apart around him, and it's just not that easy to quickly move 380 tons of stuff that will vaporize you if you mistreat it.

Then we invaded. During the invasion we bombed that place. Then, just before the invasion of Baghdad, the 101st Airborne stopped by that place to investigate.

Now, they weren't there to look for explosives; they were there to look for WMD's. When they got there they saw basically ruins - bunkers destroyed by our bombs and by secondary explosions. They said they saw lots of ordinance strewn about the place. And they had a date in Baghdad. I suspect they poked around the ruins (very carefully; there were tons of unexploded ordinance all over the place) and then hightailed it for Baghdad less than a day later, where the 'real' fighting was.

Was some of that explosive destroyed by our bombing? Almost certainly. How much we will never know. We didn't stay long enough to get an inventory.

What happened next? I suspect what happened next is the same as what happened at several sites in Iraq - they were looted down to the doorframes. At one lab, US troops broke the seals on a vault and found tons of yellowcake uranium. Then they left. They were short-handed and had a war to fight; they weren't there to guard a lab. And shortly thereafter, the uranium got stolen. At first this sounded like very bad news, but when they investigated they discovered that people had stolen the barrels of yellowcake, tossed the yellowcake and used the barrels for drinking water. Remember, this was a desert country whose infrastructure we destroyed. Water barrels were important to the locals and uranium ore was not.

This pattern has been repeated dozens of times. Entire facilities stripped of wiring, pipes, metal, even wood by looters. Some of the material has shown up as scrap in other countries; no doubt they managed to sell some 'real' stuff as well, like lab equipment, machine tools and munitions.

So where is all that stuff now? Strewn about Iraq and neighboring countries. I don't think there was any terrorist group that moved in and took it all. There just wasn't that level of organization after we invaded. Instead, it's spread all over the area - in people's homes, in caves somewhere, sold on the black market to Syrian terrorist. Search the homes nearby, and I'd bet you'd find more empty explosives cases being used as tables and storage boxes than explosive itself.

Now that organized terrorism has come to Iraq, terrorists are undoubtedly finding this stuff in dribs and drabs and using it. There have been several instances of remarkably powerful car bombs killing people there. I doubt, as Kerry says, that terrorists walked into an intact Al Qaqaa and made off with 380 tons of explosives - that's yet another campaign yarn that both sides are so fond of. Nor is this such big news; there was plenty of ordinance to raid for explosives after the war. Kerry is making a big deal about it because he can. The best thing Bush could do, I think, is say "Hey, we lost track of it; there was a lot of explosives around Iraq when we invaded and there was no way to keep track of all of it."

Hindsight is 20/20. But had we sealed off the labs with the machine tools in them, and the stores of explosives and munitions, we'd be facing less well-armed (and funded) insurgents today. The best approach to the situation (by both sides) would be a "OK, lesson learned. Guard strategic supplies a little better after you conquer them." Of course, Bush will never admit fault, and Kerry will never pass up an attempt to slam him - so it becomes a big stinkin issue. Such is politics.

[quade 4]

Quote

How does this affect the swing voters? Q, BillV?

Well, if I'm not too excited about it and Bill isn't too excited about it . . . why would fence sitters care too much?

That said, it's not going to lose Kerry any votes, but I guess it has the potential to lose GWB a very, very small percentage.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

The location of these explosives where known to all.

Not the point. The point is how can you honestly try to defend the fact that it's possible to transport 380 tons of explosives without anyone detecting it but not transport WMDs or at the very least store WMDs somewhere in that vast sandbox without detection?

Liberal logic just doesn't work.

Forty-two

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

The location of these explosives where known to all.

Not the point. The point is how can you honestly try to defend the fact that it's possible to transport 380 tons of explosives without anyone detecting it but not transport WMDs or at the very least store WMDs somewhere in that vast sandbox without detection?

Liberal logic just doesn't work.

NONSENSE. Everyone and his brother and his brother's satellite were looking for the WMDs. No-one was minding the store on the other stuff.

The stuff was safe until BUSH told the UN inspectors to get out.

Everyone whose been on the ground there says the WMD programs were non existent - Blix, Kay, Duelfer, el Baradei... But YOU know better. Sure.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Vallerina 2]

Bill, you make the most sense out of everyone in Speakers Corner!

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning