380 tons of high explosives missing in Iraq, for over a year. - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 10-26-2004, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Heh. Good point. The people crying "Bush screwed up, letting this stuff fall into the hands of potential terrorists" are the same people who cried "Saddam is not a threat!" when Saddam obviously had stuff that terrorists wanted to get their hands on...

Think again, daswig....Bushco and the so called "liberal media", RNC "shill", CNN
caught in a pathetic attempt to rescue Bush. (No wonder that the NY Times did
not even bother to address this Bushco propaganda in today's followup to the
"missing 380 tons of high explosives" story!)

Quote:

<h2>Kerry Campaign: Latest Bush Excuse on Weapons Dump Evaporates</h2>
<a href="http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=38885">http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=38885</a>
10/26/2004 1:31:00 PM

To: National Desk, Political Reporter

Contact: Chad Clanton or Phil Singer, 202-464-2800, both of Kerry-Edwards 2004

WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following statement on "Latest Bush Excuse on Weapons Dump Evaporates" was released today by the Kerry-Edwards campaign:

George Bush's continuing efforts to avoid responsibility for failing to secure 380 tons of highly dangerous explosives in Iraq just took another blow. The reporter who was actually traveling with the 101st Airborne in the report cited by the Bush campaign has clarified that the unit was not there to secure the massive weapons complex and it was merely a 'pit stop' on their way to Baghdad.

Try as it might, the Bush spin machine can not change the truth: the President is responsible for his catastrophic failures in Iraq and needs to personally address this issue.

---

LINK TO VIDEO: http://www.shadowtv.com/redirect/not...9187acc5e84db5

------

The following is a transcript of an interview aired on MSNBC today:

Amy Robach (AR): And it's still unclear exactly when those explosives disappeared. Here to help shed some light on that question is Lai Ling. She was part of an NBC news crew that traveled to that facility with the 101st Airborne Division back in April of 2003. Lai Ling, can you set the stage for us? What was the situation like when you went into the area?

Lai Ling Jew (LLJ): When we went into the area, we were actually leaving Karbala and we were initially heading to Baghdad with the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. The situation in Baghdad, the Third Infantry Division had taken over Baghdad and so they were trying to carve up the area that the 101st Airborne Division would be in charge of. As a result, they had trouble figuring out who was going to take up what piece of Baghdad. They sent us over to this area in Iskanderia. We didn't know it as the Qaqaa facility at that point but when they did bring us over there we stayed there for quite a while. We stayed overnight, almost 24 hours. And we walked around, we saw the bunkers that had been bombed, and that exposed all of the ordinances that just lied dormant on the desert.

AR: Was there a search at all underway or did a search ensue for explosives once you got there during that 24-hour period?

LLJ: No. There wasn't a search. The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around. But as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons, nothing to keep looters away. But there was - at that point the roads were shut off. So it would have been very difficult, I believe, for the looters to get there.

AR: And there was no talk of securing the area after you left. There was no discussion of that?

LLJ: Not for the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. They were -- once they were in Baghdad, it was all about Baghdad, you know, and then they ended up moving north to Mosul. Once we left the area, that was the last that the brigade had anything to do with the area.

AR: Well, Lai Ling Jew, thank you so much for shedding some light into that situation. We appreciate it.

LLJ: Thank you.

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Posted by Daswig
Who knows....maybe they had other priorities...like fighting the frigging WAR.

Who?

The reporters? The troops actually there on the spot?

"Sargent Jones!! Don't open that door! We've got some towel heads to kill! All aboard..."

Yeah, right.

Mr Mephisto

sprocket · 10-26-2004, 02:02 PM

Quote:

followup "major headline" treatment seems to reveal a transparent CNN
effort to run a damage contol operation for Bush and his campaign

That statement made me laugh out loud! CNN running damage control for bush? Thats one of the funniest things I've ever heard

daswig · 10-26-2004, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Who?

The reporters? The troops actually there on the spot?

"Sargent Jones!! Don't open that door! We've got some towel heads to kill! All aboard..."

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but we're talking about a complex with over a thousand bunkers, right? We're talking about thousands of tons of explosive ordnance, right? We're talking about front-line troops whose objective was to confront and kill or force the capitulation of the Iraqi Army, right? We're NOT talking about EOD personnel, right? So do you really think it would be a good idea for them to go poking around in such a facility?

It's all a matter of tasking.

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 02:50 PM

Do I think it would be a good idea to go "poking around"?

Well, when the whole reason for the war was to find and destroy WMDs, you're damn RIGHT I think you should go poking around.

When the IAEA specifically tells you that there are weapons there, you're damn RIGHT I think you shoud go poking around.

When there is general insurgency in the country and hundreds of US personnel are being killed by bombs, you're damn RIGHT I think youd should go poking around.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Too few men? It would have taken a platoon to guard the facility and dissuade looting.

Mr Mephisto

daswig · 10-26-2004, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Do I think it would be a good idea to go "poking around"?

Well, when the whole reason for the war was to find and destroy WMDs, you're damn RIGHT I think you should go poking around.

When the IAEA specifically tells you that there are weapons there, you're damn RIGHT I think you shoud go poking around.

When there is general insurgency in the country and hundreds of US personnel are being killed by bombs, you're damn RIGHT I think youd should go poking around.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Too few men? It would have taken a platoon to guard the facility and dissuade looting.

ROTFLMAO!!! Yessir, let's send the 11-Bravos in to deal with poking enemy explosives with sharp pointy sticks, instead of sending EOD. THAT'LL work...

I'm restraining myself from saying something I shouldn't.

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 03:33 PM

You missed the point, or deliberately misunderstood, or simply didn't read what I said.

I stated that the facility should have been investigated.

I then also stated that it would have only taken a single platoon to dissuade looting.

Two seperate assertions.

What message does it give when US Forces guard the Oil Ministry but not military facilities?

Mr Mephisto

D Rice · 10-26-2004, 05:17 PM

Is it funny that Kerry and his supporters are mad that the weapons dissapeared before we even got there. I guess it is the wrong war in the wrong place and we got there two weeks late

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 05:21 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I don't think it's fair to blame Bush for this. I think it was a military planning mistake. I suppose you could argue that Bush is responsible due to the complete lack of any real planning, but that's a bit of a jump. If more troops were available, this might have been averted.

But it certainly was a screw-up and if anyone is directly responsible it was the miliary commanders on the ground.

Just my opinion.

Mr Mephisto

cthulu23 · 10-26-2004, 05:22 PM

People, these were known weapons sealed by the IAEA. Trying to mix this up with the "WMD" question is just plain silly.

OpieCunningham · 10-26-2004, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D Rice

Is it funny that Kerry and his supporters are mad that the weapons dissapeared before we even got there. I guess it is the wrong war in the wrong place and we got there two weeks late

There is little to no evidence that even suggests that the explosives disappeared before the U.S. arrived.

onetime2 · 10-26-2004, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonjon42

you know what...I really really want to know what this message we will send by voting Kerry into office is...and who it is so bad..seriously. someone tell me what apocolyptic disaster will occur the minute Kerry takes office?

The "apocolyptic" message is that the US will go back to the failed policy of turning the other cheek it has held to for the last 30 years in the face of growing terrorist attacks against our embassies, our citizens, and our soldiers. State sponsors of terrorism won't shirk from averting their eyes to newly formed terrorist training camps springing up within their borders while their bank accounts grow.

Additionally that message will be an invitation for the opposition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to multiply their attacks tenfold to drive the US out sooner since Kerry's entire goal is to get people home as soon as possible. The last thing his political career can handle is continued or increased deaths in those two countries.

onetime2 · 10-26-2004, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Good LORD you have an amazingly low opinion of Senator Kerry if you think this bullshit is the lesser of two evils.

What would it take for you to at the very least choose to vote for a third party?

I absolutely believe the securing of Iraq could have been handled far better, but to think that every military commander in the theatre would have ignored an arms stash as well known as this one is "bullshit" of the highest order.

I have a horrendously low opinion of Kerry because he has displayed zero integrity throughout this campaign. Whenever it was politically expedient for him to be the "antiwar" candidate he pretended to be Dean. When he needed to be a "hawk" he was for the removal of Saddam Hussein and played the military hero card. He (and you) can spin his positions all you like but his vote to give the President the authority to go to war while now claiming it was only to show the UN and Hussein a united front is as much bullshit as you seem to think Bush is full of. When do you think it is more important to show a united front? When posturing with the UN and Hussein or when fighting a war? I choose the latter and I fully believe that the opposition to the war only serves to encourage and embolden those fighting against our soldiers. Kerry still doesn't understand that despite the hundreds of Vietnam Veterans who have tried to communicate that to him.

As far as voting for a third party candidate, until there is one that even comes close to matching my opinions I will continue to support one of the two candidates from the Republican or Democratic parties.

onetime2 · 10-26-2004, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

There is little to no evidence that even suggests that the explosives disappeared before the U.S. arrived.

And there is little to no evidence to say that they were there after the invasion had been completed.

daswig · 10-26-2004, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Good LORD you have an amazingly low opinion of Senator Kerry if you think this bullshit is the lesser of two evils.

What would it take for you to at the very least choose to vote for a third party?

For me, Kerry would have to exit the race, preferably to give up his senate seat and stand trial for providing aid and comfort to the government of North Vietnam during a time when the United States was at war with North Vietnam.

Kerry=Arnold, at least in my book

Democrats had a wide variety of candidates that they could have nominated. many of them I would have voted for (not Sharpton or Clarke or Braun(sp) or Kucinich ) They chose Kerry.

FishKing · 10-26-2004, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boo

Yes, the Bush administration is ultimately responsible.

This is a military fuck up. Generals are delegated authority to manage their troops to fulfill the current doctrine as described by the Commander-In-Chief. If they fail to guard a huge stockpile of explosives, then they have failed their mission.

IMO - If Kerry cannot seperate the difference, he does not need to be my Commander-In-Chief.

Holding President Bush personally responsible for this military fuck-up is only done at a very shallow level.

Prediction, If he wins, Kerry will eat these ill thought out words.

Are you saying that Bush Has Generals in charge that are not capable of defending this country? I hope not or we are all in trouble. A little education on your part will help you seperate the difference as to what is going on...

What is for lunch tomorrow?

cthulu23 · 10-26-2004, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

For me, Kerry would have to exit the race, preferably to give up his senate seat and stand trial for providing aid and comfort to the government of North Vietnam during a time when the United States was at war with North Vietnam.

Kerry=Arnold, at least in my book

I'm probably being dense here, but who is Arnold?

Doesn't it seem just a little overblown to accuse Kerry of treason? We've sparred over this before, but why wasn't he prosecuted at the time when he was in the sights of the Nixon White House? You may not think very highly of war protesters, but these claims that he gave "aid and comfort" to the enemy seem like a stretch.

Quote:

Democrats had a wide variety of candidates that they could have nominated. many of them I would have voted for (not Sharpton or Clarke or Braun(sp) or Kucinich ) They chose Kerry.

I'm sure that most here would agree that G W is far from the best Republican candidate that could have been fielded. Our democratic process is a strange beast.

cthulu23 · 10-26-2004, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

The "apocolyptic" message is that the US will go back to the failed policy of turning the other cheek it has held to for the last 30 years in the face of growing terrorist attacks against our embassies, our citizens, and our soldiers. State sponsors of terrorism won't shirk from averting their eyes to newly formed terrorist training camps springing up within their borders while their bank accounts grow.

Additionally that message will be an invitation for the opposition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to multiply their attacks tenfold to drive the US out sooner since Kerry's entire goal is to get people home as soon as possible. The last thing his political career can handle is continued or increased deaths in those two countries.

I don't think that any president is going to ignore Al Qaeda again, as earlier presidents and, initially, this administation, did. Kerry has called for more troops in Iraq which doesn't exactly imply weakness in that arena. As for Afghanistan, Bush has definitely given priority to Iraq. They did have elections but things are far from stable there (hopefully improving, though).

As for the state sponsors of terrorism angle, does it seem that likely that our military is capable of doing much else as we are tied up with the occupation of Iraq?

daswig · 10-26-2004, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

I'm probably being dense here, but who is Arnold?

Arnold was a real-life no-shit American war hero. He saved our nation at Saratoga. He then tried to surrender West Point, a vital asset in the war and a place he commanded, to the British because he was dissatisfied with his treatment by the Continental Congress. He's perhaps the most vilified American traitor in our history.

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 08:22 PM

Benedict Arnold I believe

Mr Mephisto

cthulu23 · 10-26-2004, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Arnold was a real-life no-shit American war hero. He saved our nation at Saratoga. He then tried to surrender West Point, a vital asset in the war and a place he commanded, to the British because he was dissatisfied with his treatment by the Continental Congress. He's perhaps the most vilified American traitor in our history.

I knew I was being dense. He was one of the best military leaders we had at the time but he didn't see which way the wind was blowing. Comparing him to Kerry seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

Ustwo · 10-26-2004, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Democrats had a wide variety of candidates that they could have nominated. many of them I would have voted for (not Sharpton or Clarke or Braun(sp) or Kucinich ) They chose Kerry.

Liberman was the only one that was worth voting for in my book.

daswig · 10-26-2004, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Liberman was the only one that was worth voting for in my book.

Gephardt didn't suck too badly either.

Ustwo · 10-26-2004, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Gephardt didn't suck too badly either.

He reminds me more of a car salesman then a president. Plus he always would make up imaginary friends to support his point. He did suck less then the rest though, you are correct, though he was way to deep in the Unions pockets.

daswig · 10-26-2004, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

He reminds me more of a car salesman then a president. Plus he always would make up imaginary friends to support his point. He did suck less then the rest though, you are correct, though he was way to deep in the Unions pockets.

Better to be in the pocket of organized crime (I mean labor...organized labor, dangnabit!!) than to be in the pocket of organized crime (why do I have so much trouble saying "labor"???) AND be a traitor to your country in a time of war...

Superbelt · 10-27-2004, 08:28 AM

How do you use the NBC reporters to prove that the weapons were already gone, when the NBC reporters are saying they never did a weapons search (outside of soldiers admiring the huge caches of weapons that were laying around in the open). And then moved on, leaving them for looters.

Quote:

An NBC News reporter embedded with a U.S. army unit that seized an Iraqi installation three weeks into the war said Tuesday that she saw no signs that the Americans searched for the powerful explosives that are now missing from the site.

Reporter Lai Ling Jew, who was embedded with the Army's 101st Airborne, Second Brigade, said her news team stayed at the Al-Qaqaa base for about 24 hours.

"There wasn't a search," she told MSNBC, an NBC cable news channel. "The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around.

"But as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons, nothing to keep looters away."

So, um, What now?

host · 10-27-2004, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

How do you use the NBC reporters to prove that the weapons were already gone, when the NBC reporters are saying they never did a weapons search (outside of soldiers admiring the huge caches of weapons that were laying around in the open). And then moved on, leaving them for looters.

So, um, What now?

Interesting Oct. 14, 2004 news report hints that previously U.N. inspected
Iraqi nuclear weapons facilities were not secured by U.S. occupation forces.
(Maybe there were not enough U.S. and other post invasion coalition forces
deployed in Iraq to adequately carry out securing, monitoring, and guarding
sites previously identified and inventoried by U.N weaspons inspectors.)

Quote:

<h2>
Iraqi N-sites 'stripped carefully'</h2>
Thursday, October 14, 2004 Posted: 2:56 PM EDT (1856 GMT)
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/14/iraq.nuclear.reut/">http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/14/iraq.nuclear.reut/</a>
VIENNA, Austria (Reuters) -- The mysterious removal of Iraq's mothballed nuclear facilities continued long after the U.S.-led invasion and was carried out by people with access to heavy machinery and demolition equipment, diplomats said on Thursday.

The United Nations nuclear watchdog told the Security Council this week that equipment and materials that could be used to make atomic weapons had been vanishing from Iraq without either Baghdad or Washington noticing.

"This process carried on at least through 2003 ... and probably into 2004, at least in early 2004," said a Western diplomat close to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which monitored Iraq's nuclear sites before last year's war.

That contrasted with statements by Western and Iraqi officials, who have played down the disappearance of the equipment. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said on Tuesday he believed most of the removals took place in the chaos shortly after the March 2003 invasion.

The United States and Britain said they invaded to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Both countries now admit toppled ruler Saddam Hussein had no such weapons.

Several diplomats close to the IAEA said the disappearance of the nuclear items was not the result of haphazard looting.

They said the removal of the dual-use equipment -- which before the war was tagged and closely monitored by the IAEA to ensure it was not being used in a weapons program -- was planned and executed by people who knew what they were doing.

"We're talking about dozens of sites being dismantled," a diplomat said on condition of anonymity. "Large numbers of buildings taken down, warehouses were emptied and removed. This would require heavy machinery, demolition equipment. This is not something that you'd do overnight."
Proliferation fears

Diplomats in Vienna say the IAEA is worried that these facilities, which belonged to Saddam's pre-1991 covert nuclear weapons program, could have been packed up and sold to a country or militants interested in nuclear weapons.

The diplomats said that among the sites that had been stripped were a precision manufacturing site at Umm Al Marik, a site connected with Iraq's nuclear weapons activities at Al Qa Qaa and an engineering facility at Badr.

One diplomat said there were "dozens of others" that gradually disappeared from satellite photos analyzed by IAEA experts at its headquarters in Vienna.

Independent expert Alex Standish, editor of Jane's Intelligence Digest, said Iraqi nuclear and weapons-related material that was monitored by the U.N. before the invasion had since been found in Europe. Raw "yellowcake" uranium, apparently from Iraq, was found in Rotterdam last December, he said.

"It seems extremely negligent for the authorities in Iraq to allow this quantity of material to have been exported from the country," Standish said.

In 1991, the IAEA detected Saddam's clandestine nuclear weapons program and spent the next seven years investigating and dismantling it. By the time U.N. inspectors left the country in December 1998, Iraq's covert atom bomb program was gone.

After returning in November 2002 until they were evacuated in March 2003, the IAEA was confident none of the dual-use nuclear equipment in Iraq was being used in a weapons program.

Superbelt · 10-27-2004, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Interesting Oct. 14, 2004 news report hints that previously U.N. inspected
Iraqi nuclear weapons facilities were not secured by U.S. occupation forces.
(Maybe there were not enough U.S. and other post invasion coalition forces
deployed in Iraq to adequately carry out securing, monitoring, and guarding
sites previously identified and inventoried by U.N weaspons inspectors.)

Which is another way of saying our Administration did a poor job of carrying out the invasion if they were unprepared to secure weapons caches as they passed them en route to skirmishes.

stevo · 10-27-2004, 11:16 AM

So let me get this straight. We couldn't find any WMD's that we weren't sure were there and we can't find 380 tons of high grade explosives we knew were there.

All the evidence points toward the 380 tons of explosives going missing BEFORE the arrival of US troops. Where did it go?

I for one still believe there were WMD's in some form in Iraq prior to the US invasion. If 380 tons of exposives could have been removed by saddam before the US invasion then he sure as hell could have moved any WMD's he had.

It would be a consolation prize for saddam if he embaresses bush by not using WMD's and not having any found. It just might sway world opinion against Bush. He knows he wasn't going to win the war even if he used WMD's. Using them would only prove Bush right.

So to me it looks as if the 380 tons of explosives just might be in the same place as the WMD's. Don't as me where. It's a big freakin sandbox.

bling · 10-27-2004, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo22

All the evidence points toward the 380 tons of explosives going missing BEFORE the arrival of US troops.

There is no evidence that points toward the 380 tons of explosive going missing before the arrival of US troops.

There is no evidence either way at this point.

There is probability. And there is a much higher degree of probability that the explosives went missing after the arrival of US troops.

All of that information is contained either in this thread or in the links from this thread. I'll leave it to you to read the thread more closely.

stevo · 10-27-2004, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

There is no evidence that points toward the 380 tons of explosive going missing before the arrival of US troops.

There is no evidence either way at this point.

There is probability. And there is a much higher degree of probability that the explosives went missing after the arrival of US troops.

There is a much higher degree of probability that the explosives went missing BEFORE the arrival of US troops. In the month April, when the US troops reached Baghdad, where was the insurgency? It was in infantile stages, definately not capeable of transporting 40 truckloads of explosives around Iraq on roads heavy with US forces.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136745,00.html

Quote:

Search Showed No Explosives at Iraqi Base Before War's End
Wednesday, October 27, 2004

WASHINGTON — U.S. forces searched several times last year the Iraqi military base from which 380 tons of explosives vanished — including one check a week before Saddam Hussein was driven out of power. But the military saw no signs of a huge quantity of munitions, Pentagon officials told FOX News.

A timeline provided by the Defense Department is significant because officials from the new Iraqi interim government told the International Atomic Energy Agency two weeks ago that the explosives were stolen sometime after coalition forces took control of Baghdad.

The IAEA reported the disappearance to the U.N. Security Council on Monday, the same day the New York Times ran a front-page story on the topic. The story started a firestorm of debate that has consumed the presidential race in its closing days, forced the Pentagon to account for its actions and raised questions of media bias.

The explosives were being kept at the Al-Qaqaa installation south of Baghdad. The munitions included HMX and RDX, key components in plastic explosives, which insurgents in Iraq have used in bomb attacks. The IAEA was monitoring the munitions because HMX is a "dual use" substance powerful enough to ignite the fissile material in an atomic bomb and set off a nuclear chain reaction.

On April 3, 2003, elements of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division made it to Al-Qaqaa, where they were engaged by Iraqi forces from inside the facility, Defense officials told FOX News.

The 3rd Infantry soldiers stayed long enough to battle the Iraqis and to give the facility a brief inspection before heading out to continue on their prime objective — reaching the Iraqi capital.

A day or so after Baghdad fell on April 9, 2003, troops from the 101st Airborne Division's 2nd Brigade arrived at Al-Qaqaa.

One officer with the 101st said looters had already gone through the facility.

The soldiers "secured the area they were in and looked in a limited amount of bunkers to ensure chemical weapons were not present in their area," Lt. Col. Fred Wellman, deputy public affairs officer for the unit, wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "Bombs were found but not chemical weapons in that immediate area.

"Orders were not given from higher to search or to secure the facility or to search for HE type munitions, as they [high-explosive weapons] were everywhere in Iraq," he wrote.

On May 8, 2003, a team from the 75th Exploitation Task Force arrived at Al-Qaqaa to search it. The task force followed up with additional searches on May 11 and May 27.

The 75th Exploitation Task Force, which was in charge of directing the search operation for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, did not find any evidence of the explosives.

The Pentagon investigation is continuing, and there is some thought that trucks operated by Saddam's regime may have been in the vicinity of the facility in late March.

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

Reporters Offer First-Hand Accounts

Reporters who were embedded with the U.S. military at the time also have offered first-hand accounts of what they saw at Al-Qaqaa.

FOX News' Dana Lewis was with the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division when it stopped at the site on April 10 for 24 hours before continuing on to Baghdad.

"It was sealed in the sense that when we arrived, no one was inside," Lewis said, adding that there were dozens of abandoned Iraqi tanks outside the facility.

"Inside, we walked around dozens of concrete bunkers, which were still sealed. Many still had padlocks on the doors and in another part of this giant walled compound, we saw dozens and dozens of rockets, most of them damaged from air strikes."

Lewis noted that he did not see any IAEA tags during his brief time at Al-Qaqaa.

Associated Press correspondent Chris Tomlinson, who was embedded with the 3rd Infantry but didn't go to Al-Qaqaa, described the search of Iraqi military facilities south of Baghdad as brief, cursory missions to seek out hostile troops, not to inventory or secure weapons.

The enormous size of the bases, the rapid pace of the advance on Baghdad and a limited number of troops made it impossible for U.S. commanders to allocate any soldiers to guard any of the facilities after making a check, Tomlinson said.

NBC correspondent Lai Ling Jew, who was with the 101st, told MSNBC that "there wasn't a search" of Al-Qaqaa.

"The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad," she said. "As far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons, nothing to keep looters away."

Wellman, the 101st Airborne spokesman, said he does not know if any troops were left at the facility once combat troops from the 2nd Brigade left.

The IAEA had pulled out of Iraq in 1998, and by the time it returned in 2002, it confirmed that 35 tons of HMX that had been placed under IAEA seal were missing.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told the United Nations in February 2003 that Iraq had declared that "HMX previously under IAEA seal had been transferred for use in the production of industrial explosives, primarily to cement plants as a booster for explosives used in quarrying."

"However, given the nature of the use of high explosives, it may well be that the IAEA will be unable to reach a final conclusion on the end use of this material," ElBaradei warned at the time.

He did not specifically mention Al-Qaqaa in his February 2003 briefing to the United Nations, and the agency has not said whether it separately informed the United States.

FOX News' Bret Baier, Dana Lewis and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

jonjon42 · 10-27-2004, 12:53 PM

I would like to repeat one thing that some of you people may not have heard.

The reports of US troops passing that region as early as April 4th means that the NBC reporter was most likely speculating! He/She probably did not realize that soldiers had already passed through and assumed that they were gone before the troops she was with stopped their.

I repeat this because I think it is a very rational explanation of the entire issue and I think some people didn't pick it up.

bling · 10-27-2004, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo22

There is a much higher degree of probability that the explosives went missing BEFORE the arrival of US troops. In the month April, when the US troops reached Baghdad, where was the insurgency? It was in infantile stages, definately not capeable of transporting 40 truckloads of explosives around Iraq on roads heavy with US forces.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136745,00.html

By your own article, you are suggesting that the explosives were removed sometime between March 16th and April 2nd and not removed sometime between April 3rd and May 8th.

It would hardly be difficult for any insurgency to remove them after April 3rd - all it takes is knowledge of the whereabouts (and we know that many in the insurgency, particularly at the start, were Saddam military) and some trucks. Hardly a mission requiring a high degree of organization on the part of the insurgents.

Jonjon42 - also note that the NBC reporter has already stated that she has no idea if the explosives were still there because the troops she was with did not search the facility.

onetime2 · 10-27-2004, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

I don't think that any president is going to ignore Al Qaeda again, as earlier presidents and, initially, this administation, did. Kerry has called for more troops in Iraq which doesn't exactly imply weakness in that arena. As for Afghanistan, Bush has definitely given priority to Iraq. They did have elections but things are far from stable there (hopefully improving, though).

As for the state sponsors of terrorism angle, does it seem that likely that our military is capable of doing much else as we are tied up with the occupation of Iraq?

Al Qaeda is not the only source of terrorism. More troops in Iraq does not mean less guerilla activity. At the very least the opposition in Iraq and Afghanistan will test Kerry's resolve especially given his well rehearsed stance of "wrong war, wrong time" etc.

Our military is still incredibly capable of doing more. It took us how many hours to complete both Gulf Wars? Destruction of a state sponsor of terrorism would take little effort. Trying to occupy one is certainly a different matter. Regime change (which requires ground forces) would not be the first step but, like Iraq, the last.

cthulu23 · 10-27-2004, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

Al Qaeda is not the only source of terrorism. More troops in Iraq does not mean less guerilla activity. At the very least the opposition in Iraq and Afghanistan will test Kerry's resolve especially given his well rehearsed stance of "wrong war, wrong time" etc.

There is a difference between "resolve" and critiquing an administration that hastily rushed to war with little support.

daswig · 10-27-2004, 07:42 PM

Quote:

"I don't think that any president is going to ignore Al Qaeda again, as earlier presidents and, initially, this administation, did."

Right. Goddamn George W. Bush! He was in office for EIGHT WHOLE MONTHS and didn't manage to rid the world of everybody that hates us!!!

If Dubya had gotten into office, and the first thing he did was start bombing the shit out of terrorists that wanted to kill Americans, people would have positively HIT THE FRIGGING ROOF. (BTW, that would have INCLUDED hitting Baghdad...)

scout · 10-27-2004, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

It would hardly be difficult for any insurgency to remove them after April 3rd - all it takes is knowledge of the whereabouts (and we know that many in the insurgency, particularly at the start, were Saddam military) and some trucks. Hardly a mission requiring a high degree of organization on the part of the insurgents..

You forget that we had military planes over the entire area [roughly the size of California?] continually. It would be almost impossible for at least 40 truckloads to be loaded and carted off. Simply to load 380 tons of munitions would take at minimum hours, more likely days to complete. With the air cover and all those pilots looking for targets I find it unlikely to believe that it could have been accomplished.

bling · 10-27-2004, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

You forget that we had military planes over the entire area [roughly the size of California?] continually. It would be almost impossible for at least 40 truckloads to be loaded and carted off. Simply to load 380 tons of munitions would take at minimum hours, more likely days to complete. With the air cover and all those pilots looking for targets I find it unlikely to believe that it could have been accomplished.

The contention is that the area was unguarded. You have just described a scenario that claims the area was essentially guarded. I am not familiar with the area and I suspect you are not either, so to state that it is unlikely or likely to be accomplished based on our lack of information on the area doesn't get us anywhere.

But information such as this lends much credence to the probability that the explosives where looted post-Military arrival:

Quote:

HMX and RDX are white, crystalline powders:

"Closer to Baghdad, troops at Iraq's largest military industrial complex found nerve agent antidotes, documents describing chemical warfare and a white powder that appeared to be used for explosives.

Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, said troops found thousands of 2-by-5-inch boxes, each containing three vials of white powder....

Initial reports suggest the powder is an explosive, but tests are still being done, a senior U.S. official said"

FoxNews (04.04.03)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83252,00.html

"In the first of yesterday's discoveries, the 3rd Infantry Division entered the vast Qa Qaa chemical and explosives production plant and came across thousands of vials of white powder, packed three to a box."

Gulf News (04.06.03)
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/ne...rticleID=83345

"Closer to Baghdad, troops at Iraq's largest military industrial complex found nerve agent antidotes, documents describing chemical warfare and a white powder that appeared to be used for explosives.

Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, said troops found thousands of five-centimetre by 12-centimetre boxes, each containing three vials of white powder, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in chemical warfare.

A senior U.S. official familiar with initial testing said the powder was believed to be explosives. The finding would be consistent with the plant's stated production capabilities in the field of basic raw materials for explosives and propellants."

GlobalSecurity.org (04.05.03)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...eadiness01.htm

cthulu23 · 10-27-2004, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Right. Goddamn George W. Bush! He was in office for EIGHT WHOLE MONTHS and didn't manage to rid the world of everybody that hates us!!!

If Dubya had gotten into office, and the first thing he did was start bombing the shit out of terrorists that wanted to kill Americans, people would have positively HIT THE FRIGGING ROOF. (BTW, that would have INCLUDED hitting Baghdad...)

I didn't imply that Bush should have cleansed the world of terrorism, I only made the comment that his administration was as guilty of ignoring Al Qaeda as the previous administration. Putting words in my mouth does not change that fact.

D Rice · 10-27-2004, 09:02 PM

Yes it has been reported from various news organizations (mynews, foxnews, cnn) that the weapons were gone before the troops were in Iraq

10-27-2004, 12:53 PM	#112 (permalink)
jonjon42 Psycho Location: inside my own mind	I would like to repeat one thing that some of you people may not have heard. The reports of US troops passing that region as early as April 4th means that the NBC reporter was most likely speculating! He/She probably did not realize that soldiers had already passed through and assumed that they were gone before the troops she was with stopped their. I repeat this because I think it is a very rational explanation of the entire issue and I think some people didn't pick it up. __________________ A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

10-26-2004, 02:50 PM	#85 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Do I think it would be a good idea to go "poking around"? Well, when the whole reason for the war was to find and destroy WMDs, you're damn RIGHT I think you should go poking around. When the IAEA specifically tells you that there are weapons there, you're damn RIGHT I think you shoud go poking around. When there is general insurgency in the country and hundreds of US personnel are being killed by bombs, you're damn RIGHT I think youd should go poking around. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Too few men? It would have taken a platoon to guard the facility and dissuade looting. Mr Mephisto

10-26-2004, 03:33 PM	#87 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	You missed the point, or deliberately misunderstood, or simply didn't read what I said. I stated that the facility should have been investigated. I then also stated that it would have only taken a single platoon to dissuade looting. Two seperate assertions. What message does it give when US Forces guard the Oil Ministry but not military facilities? Mr Mephisto

10-26-2004, 05:17 PM	#88 (permalink)
D Rice Tilted	Is it funny that Kerry and his supporters are mad that the weapons dissapeared before we even got there. I guess it is the wrong war in the wrong place and we got there two weeks late

10-26-2004, 05:21 PM	#89 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't think it's fair to blame Bush for this. I think it was a military planning mistake. I suppose you could argue that Bush is responsible due to the complete lack of any real planning, but that's a bit of a jump. If more troops were available, this might have been averted. But it certainly was a screw-up and if anyone is directly responsible it was the miliary commanders on the ground. Just my opinion. Mr Mephisto

10-26-2004, 05:22 PM	#90 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	People, these were known weapons sealed by the IAEA. Trying to mix this up with the "WMD" question is just plain silly.

10-26-2004, 08:22 PM	#100 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Benedict Arnold I believe Mr Mephisto

10-27-2004, 11:16 AM	#109 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	So let me get this straight. We couldn't find any WMD's that we weren't sure were there and we can't find 380 tons of high grade explosives we knew were there. All the evidence points toward the 380 tons of explosives going missing BEFORE the arrival of US troops. Where did it go? I for one still believe there were WMD's in some form in Iraq prior to the US invasion. If 380 tons of exposives could have been removed by saddam before the US invasion then he sure as hell could have moved any WMD's he had. It would be a consolation prize for saddam if he embaresses bush by not using WMD's and not having any found. It just might sway world opinion against Bush. He knows he wasn't going to win the war even if he used WMD's. Using them would only prove Bush right. So to me it looks as if the 380 tons of explosives just might be in the same place as the WMD's. Don't as me where. It's a big freakin sandbox.

10-27-2004, 09:02 PM	#120 (permalink)
D Rice Tilted	Yes it has been reported from various news organizations (mynews, foxnews, cnn) that the weapons were gone before the troops were in Iraq