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

Superbelt · 10-25-2004, 09:14 AM

Ooh, THAT'S where you got all the materials to kill our troops with IED's etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/in...rtner=homepage

Quote:

The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, produce missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no-man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished after the American invasion last year.

The White House said President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was informed within the past month that the explosives were missing. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed. American officials have never publicly announced the disappearance, but beginning last week they answered questions about it posed by The New York Times and the CBS News program "60 Minutes."

Administration officials said yesterday that the Iraq Survey Group, the C.I.A. task force that searched for unconventional weapons, has been ordered to investigate the disappearance of the explosives.

American weapons experts say their immediate concern is that the explosives could be used in major bombing attacks against American or Iraqi forces: the explosives, mainly HMX and RDX, could be used to produce bombs strong enough to shatter airplanes or tear apart buildings. The bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound of the material of the type stolen from Al Qaqaa, and somewhat larger amounts were apparently used in the bombing of a housing complex in November 2003 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the blasts in a Moscow apartment complex in September 1999 that killed nearly 300 people.

also Here

Quote:

Kerry says:
"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."

I tend to agree. I wonder exactly how many lives were lost because we failed to do something as basic as secure these explosives?
How can some on here CONTINUE to say that Bush is stronger on National Security? This is the dictionary definition of incompetent.

Ustwo · 10-25-2004, 09:30 AM

The only thing that really stinks about this story is the timing

Very old info, and apparently the explosives were gone before the US forces even got there. Just the NYT's helping out their candidate.

Superbelt · 10-25-2004, 09:37 AM

Hmm, the second article described them as thus:

Quote:

She described Al Qaqaa as "massive" and said it is one of the most well-known storage sites. Besides the 380 tons, there were large caches of artillery there.

Seems hard to move something "Massive" more quickly than we could secure them.

Also:

Quote:

McClellan, on Air Force One, stressed that the missing explosives were not nuclear materials, and said the storage site was the responsibility of the interim Iraqi government, not the United States, as of June 28, when the United States turned over the nation's administration to the Iraqis.

Why would McClellan blame the loss on the interim Iraqi Government if everything was "gone before the US forces even got there."?

runtuff · 10-25-2004, 09:45 AM

I've become so suspicious when I read any article, Pro Kerry Pro Bush, or against Bush or Kerry as being politically motivated to influence the elections. I use to think other countries had biased media but we do not. Now I'm not so sure. November 2nd is not going to be here soon enough!!

OpieCunningham · 10-25-2004, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Very old info

So if you do something incredibly stupid, as long as you cover it up for months, the action can be flat out dismissed when it does finally become public?

Nice.

Is this balanced perspective you're sharing with us? Or a lame defense of your candidate?

Superbelt · 10-25-2004, 09:50 AM

As old of info as it is, let's see a raise of hands of who knew about it before I posted it?

Scipio · 10-25-2004, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The only thing that really stinks about this story is the timing

Very old info, and apparently the explosives were gone before the US forces even got there. Just the NYT's helping out their candidate.

They're always out to get ya, it seems. That *must* be what it is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/in...=all&position=

Quote:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

...

Two weeks ago, on Oct. 10, Dr. Mohammed J. Abbas of the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology wrote a letter to the I.A.E.A. to say the Qaqaa stockpile had been lost. He added that his ministry had judged that an "urgent updating of the registered materials is required."

A chart in his letter listed 341.7 metric tons, about 377 American tons, of HMX, RDX and PETN as missing.

It's just now in the news because the Iraqi government just now warned the US and the IAEA about the missing explosives. According to the article, the missing explosives would fill almost 40 large trucks, and are well suited to insurgent and paramilitary activities. They pack a massive punch, but are highly stable (meaning they won't go off if jarred or struck), and require blasting caps to detonate. The IAEA was keeping tabs on them because explosives like the ones lost can be used to detonate nuclear weapons.

Superbelt · 10-25-2004, 01:55 PM

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0041025-1.html

Quote:

Q But after Iraqi Freedom, there were those caches all around, wasn't the multinational force -- who was responsible for keeping track --

MR. McCLELLAN: At the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom there were a number of priorities. It was a priority to make sure that the oil fields were secure, so that there wasn't massive destruction of the oil fields, which we thought would occur. It was a priority to get the reconstruction office up and running. It was a priority to secure the various ministries, so that we could get those ministries working on their priorities, whether it was -

Q So it was the multinational force's responsibility --

MR. McCLELLAN: There were a number of -- well, the coalition forces, there were a number of priorities at the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I THOUGHT the priority was to secure any and all weapons....

That is what he told us....

So, the price of making the oil fields a priority rather than unsecured stashes of weapons around the nation is this:

So many american soldiers, civilians and current/hopeful Iraqi security forces dead or wounded.

For oil.
Is the Bush admin trying to prove their oppositions point now?

Dostoevsky · 10-25-2004, 02:16 PM

It is funny that I found this thread today. I am in Croatia right now and I keep a journal on anything I feel like writing about. It just so happens that I wrote about this story on page 96. It is very personal and opionated but I will paste it here anyhow for those of you who care to read it.

The big story on CNN today is that 380 tons of military grade explosives are missing from depots in Iraq. The UN was aware of the existence of these explosives, but failed to secure them after the war. It is being reported that Bush said he doesn’t have enough troops in Iraq to guard that volume of explosives. Now, the US and UN are concerned that the explosives ‘may’ fall into the ‘wrong hands.’ (Read, the insurgency and terrorists.)

First of all, who the hell else would want 380 tons of C4 and other high grade explosives? Hint, it’s not Allowah the neighborhood butcher. Regardless of who took the explosives, I feel very confident that they have made there way into the ‘wrong hands.’ Another thing, we have somewhere around 130,000 troops in Iraq. How many military objectives are more important than securing 380 tons of explosives from ‘the wrong hands?’ George Bush, are you fucking serious right now? We don’t have enough troops to guard something like that? What are we, French? I can’t believe we were so sloppy. If it wasn’t for Kerry’s liberal domestic policies, I may support that sorry piece of shit. Iraq is a complete mess. Then again, my source on this matter is CNN international which should be renamed the European Socialist News for the sake of accuracy. Hopefully there will be more to this story other than the car bombs that will inevitably explode thanks to these unguarded explosives.

Well, those are my feelings on the issue, completely unabridged. I hope I haven't ruffled any feathers. They say opions are like belly buttons, everyone has one.

-Dostoevsky

Superbelt · 10-25-2004, 02:25 PM

Thanks for that Dostoevsky. It's nice to get some backup from someone who is in that region and from the "other side".

Though I gotta say it baffles me how anyone who reads this can still vote Bush. How anyone who reads this can still think that Kerry can't do a better job. I could do a better job using a Magic 8 Ball.

onetime2 · 10-25-2004, 03:28 PM

Inexcusable not to secure any number of high priority sites post-invasion. I can continue to vote Bush because the alternative will be horrendous for the war on terror and send the absolute worst message to terrorists, our troops, and our allies.

Mephisto2 · 10-25-2004, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The only thing that really stinks about this story is the timing

Very old info, and apparently the explosives were gone before the US forces even got there. Just the NYT's helping out their candidate.

Very old info?

Actually, the story only broke a couple of days ago. US Intelligence agencies prevented the information from being released ealier.

Condeleeza Rich herself was only informed 10 days ago.

Very old?!!

http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArti...toryID=6602807
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/me...aq.explosives/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3950493.stm

Mr Mephisto

Superbelt · 10-25-2004, 03:35 PM

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?

jonjon42 · 10-25-2004, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

I can continue to vote Bush because the alternative will be horrendous for the war on terror and send the absolute worst message to terrorists, our troops, and our allies.

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?

10-25-2004, 04:37 PM

The Army Corps of Engineers have estimated that Saddam had 600 THOUSAND tons of weaponry, based on what they have found. Only 110 thousand tons have been destroyed. Could we really have stopped the looters from getting some of that?

cthulu23 · 10-25-2004, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jconnolly

The Army Corps of Engineers have estimated that Saddam had 600 THOUSAND tons of weaponry, based on what they have found. Only 110 thousand tons have been destroyed. Could we really have stopped the looters from getting some of that?

The 380 tons of high explosives in question had been sealed by the IAEA and there whereabouts were well known so, yes, preventing this was very possible.

Superbelt · 10-25-2004, 04:46 PM

This stash was already secured. It would have taken troops, but it could be done. For 380 tons of extremely high grade explosives, that were secure, we should have been able to plan for that.

You don't start a war with the intention to secure all the weapons they have to prevent them from being used by terrorists, and not have a plan to actually secure all the weapons That's called stupid, short sighted, incompetent and pretty much derelict of duty.
Those weapons were neutralized and accounted for by the international community. Now they are... God knows where....

10-25-2004, 04:47 PM

Then this brings me back to my original question: What does Bush have to do with this? Your military would be just as incompetent under any President.

Heh, this is kind of interesting. When 380 tons of explosives goes missing from a cache in Iraq, it MUST have made its way into the hands of terrorists or the resistance. But when the WMDs are unaccounted for, Saddam MUST have destroyed them back in '91. (This, by the way, is just mindless sarcastic commentary.)

Superbelt · 10-25-2004, 05:09 PM

No, the military wouldn't. There is plenty of evidence of Bush not listening to the military commanders, both at home and on the field. He chose to make the decisions, as commander in chief, that go counter to those under him.

To your second part: Who else would have the 380 tons of explosives, stolen from a warzone?

and: I believe that the senate inquiries handled that. There were no weapons, or programs. Saddam had hopes of building one some day when the sanctions were all gone, but as of our invasion he had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. His lack of proof that he had weapons were intended as a smokescreen to make himself look dangerous to Iraq's enemy, Iran. If Iran knew that they were relatively defenseless, nothing would have stopped Iran from overrunning Iraq and deposing, and killing Saddam.

Have you not been paying attention?

Mephisto2 · 10-25-2004, 05:11 PM

Well jconnolly, I think you bring up a very valid point.

This was a military fuck up, not an Administration fuck-up.

Having said that, where does the buck stop again?

Mr Mephisto

JaySpencer · 10-25-2004, 05:33 PM

I would say that it's a monsterous 'Whoops' on all parts!

10-25-2004, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

No, the military wouldn't. There is plenty of evidence of Bush not listening to the military commanders, both at home and on the field. He chose to make the decisions, as commander in chief, that go counter to those under him.

But does he make battlefield decisions and troop deployments?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

and: I believe that the senate inquiries handled that. There were no weapons, or programs. Saddam had hopes of building one some day when the sanctions were all gone, but as of our invasion he had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. His lack of proof that he had weapons were intended as a smokescreen to make himself look dangerous to Iraq's enemy, Iran. If Iran knew that they were relatively defenseless, nothing would have stopped Iran from overrunning Iraq and deposing, and killing Saddam.

What about all the weapons documented from after the Gulf War, before he kicked out the inspectors? You know, the ones that all those sanctions were put in place to make him come out with, and prove he destroyed them, but refused to? He has nothing NOW, and that's exactly my point. Did he pour them across the sands? Did he sell them? Inquiring minds want to know!

daswig · 10-25-2004, 05:40 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?

Kerry wants to "Unify" the country. He doesn't believe in the whole "Red State-Blue State" dichotomy. His solution: Remove all red and blue from the American flag.

/sings the WWII classic "I surrender, dear...."

daswig · 10-25-2004, 05:42 PM

For a completely on-topic post: This stuff is cheaply available on the world market, and Iraq's borders are beyond pourous. What's the hubbub....bub?

hunnychile · 10-25-2004, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

I gotta say it baffles me how anyone who reads this can still vote Bush. How anyone who reads this can still think that Kerry can't do a better job. I could do a better job using a Magic 8 Ball.

Funny thought...how does our super ace military miss monitoring the removal of 300 tons of ordinance like this...that was one keen slight of hand! Bush probably had his Haliburton buddies "truck it" to Saudi Arabia with a military escort to give it to the royal families as a gift. Maybe a little Ramadan present.

The timing of this news release is amazing. Bet we have an Orange or Red Alert or "Intel" on Major Targets ala BushCo within the next few days. In time for Nov. 2nd.

Scipio · 10-25-2004, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jconnolly

Then this brings me back to my original question: What does Bush have to do with this? Your military would be just as incompetent under any President.

I don't think this is an issue of military competence. The military is quite good at doing what they're trained to do, given adequate paramaters to act within. In fact, this failure and others had a lot to do with the decisions that President Bush made going in. You see, Rumsfeld thought it would be neat to knock over Iraq with only two divisions. It would scare a lot of people, and it worked; the army was able to do the job.

They started having problems once they got there. 150,000 troops are not enough to secure Iraq. They had to bring in guard and reserve units. Inevitably, those units and others wound up doing jobs that they weren't trained or prepared for. Just look at Abu Ghraib. Not only did they have troops doing a job they weren't prepared for, they failed to make sure our troops understood the geneva conventions, and they promoted a culture of intolerance and dehumanization towards the Iraqis. When you believe someone is evil, it's easy to do bad things to them.

We could have a whole other thread rehashing that fiasco, but I think it's relevant here, as this missing weapons cache is just another example of Bush's failed leadership in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/in...n&pagewanted=2

Quote:

Thomas E. White, then the secretary of the Army, said he had received similar guidance from Mr. Rumsfeld's office. "Our working budgetary assumption was that 90 days after completion of the operation, we would withdraw the first 50,000 and then every 30 days we'd take out another 50,000 until everybody was back," he recalled. "The view was that whatever was left in Iraq would be de minimis."

...

The limited number of United States troops, however, posed problems in policing the porous borders, establishing a significant presence in the resistant Sunni Triangle and imposing order in the capital.

"My position is that we lost momentum and that the insurgency was not inevitable," said James A. (Spider) Marks, a retired Army major general, who served as the chief intelligence officer for the land war command. "We had momentum going in and had Saddam's forces on the run.

"But we did not have enough troops," he continued. "First, we did not have enough troops to conduct combat patrols in sufficient numbers to gain solid intelligence and paint a good picture of the enemy on the ground. Secondly, we needed more troops to act on the intelligence we generated. They took advantage of our limited numbers."

(it's a good article, and a worthwhile read, if a bit long)

The civilian and military leadership didn't even prepare for an insurgency. They figured everything would go quite well, and we wouldn't have problems. You see, if we talked about things going badly, that might undermine our case for war. Better preparation might have prevented 40 truckloads of explosives from being "liberated" from their bunker to arm our enemies. The IAEA knew where the stuff was. Why? Because RDX can be used to detonate nuclear weapons.

760,000 pounds of extremely high grade military explosives. The shit ain't firecrackers, and nobody knows where it is, or how many Americans have died because of it.

daswig · 10-25-2004, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scipio

Better preparation might have prevented 40 truckloads of explosives from being "liberated" from their bunker to arm our enemies..

I hope they kept better track of it than the bunker full of chemical munitions (AKA WMDs) they found in Iraq but still haven't opened...

daswig · 10-25-2004, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

I wonder exactly how many lives were lost because we failed to do something as basic as secure these explosives?

Well, now that it's coming out that the sites were looted over 18 months ago, BEFORE US troops were on the ground in Iraq, I wonder how Bush was supposed to protect those sites? Hmmmm????

10-25-2004, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

I hope they kept better track of it than the bunker full of chemical munitions (AKA WMDs) they found in Iraq but still haven't opened...

I think I speak for all of us when I say: What?

daswig · 10-25-2004, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jconnolly

I think I speak for all of us when I say: What?

They found a sealed bunker-full of WMDs in Iraq, but haven't opened it. They were declared to the UN but not destroyed by Saddam. It was in the Duelfer report, found here: http://www.foia.cia.gov/duelfer/Iraqs_WMD_Vol3.pdf

Look on page 78, where it says

Quote:

Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored
there. The most dangerous ones have been declared
to the UN and are sealed in bunkers. Although
declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be con-
firmed. These areas of the compound pose a hazard
to civilians and potential blackmarketers.

Apparently they were declared to UN inspectors, who sealed the bunkers, and we just haven't gotten around to unsealing them.

cthulu23 · 10-25-2004, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Well, now that it's coming out that the sites were looted over 18 months ago, BEFORE US troops were on the ground in Iraq, I wonder how Bush was supposed to protect those sites? Hmmmm????

Could we get a link to that story?

Given that the initial evidence pointed to the disappearance of the explosives following the invasion, is your "crazy" emoticon really necessary (man, I hate emoticons...the occasional smiley is a necessary evil to denote humor but after that it just gets silly)?

daswig · 10-25-2004, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Could we get a link to that story?

Given that the initial evidence pointed to the disappearance of the explosives following the invasion, is your "crazy" emoticon really necessary (man, I hate emoticons...the occasional smiley is a necessary evil to denote humor but after that it just gets silly)?

It's on Drudge, quoting a NBCnews piece.

OpieCunningham · 10-25-2004, 07:00 PM

Quote:

At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

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

Not sure where dawsig got his contradictive info.

cthulu23 · 10-25-2004, 07:10 PM

Drudge says that "NBCNEWS" reporters were embedded with a unit that visited the looted site on April 10, 2003. Now, he gives no supporting names, details or any other facts, so this could disappear like so many other Drudge claims. As the scumbag likes to say, developing....

Scipio · 10-25-2004, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Drudge says that "NBCNEWS" reporters were embedded with a unit that visited the looted site on April 10, 2003. Now, he gives no supporting names, details or any other facts, so this could disappear like so many other Drudge claims. As the scumbag likes to say, developing....

Indeed. He always cries foul when the "liberal" media does something he doesn't like, but he's never been above using even worse forms of deception, truth blurring, and innuendo for his own purposes.

Scipio · 10-25-2004, 07:35 PM

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc..._24.php#003797

Double post, but someone smarter than me has followed up on this. He doesn't seem to know which way the story goes, but the dispute is over a timing issue In late March/Early April 03. I'll give you the post in its entirety:

Quote:

So which is it?

The Iraqi interim government says that the explosives at al Qa Qaa went missing some time after April 9th 2003 because of "the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security."

(Remember, Baghdad fell on April 9th, so presumably that's a marker denoting simply that it happened at some point after the fall of the old regime.)

Today, Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita suggested that the weapons may have been taken from al Qa Qaa in the final days of the old regime or in fact during the war.

Remember, the IAEA inspected the munitions in January 2003 and then returned to the site and saw that the seals were in place in March, just a week or so before the war started. So Di Rita is claiming that the explosives were taken away in a two or three week period in late March of very early April 2003. If Drudge is to be trusted (yes, yes, I know), NBC will be running with some version of this storyline.

But there's another version of events.

A Pentagon "official who monitors developments in Iraq" told the Associated Press today that "US-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact."

That of course would mean that the explosives were not removed from the facility until some point after the war. And that would be in line with what the Iraqis two weeks ago told the IAEA.

Let's review for a moment. We have a dispute here about a window of time covering two to four weeks, say roughly from March 10th to April 10th 2003 at the longest. But it's an important few weeks because it was over this span of time that the region went from the control of Saddam's government to the US military.

If the Di Rita hypothesis rests on the claim that the first US troops that visited al Qa Qaa found that the explosives had already been stolen or looted or otherwise secreted away. (He has, in fact, already said this.) And that would mean that the US government has known the explosives were missing for some eighteen months.

The problem is that the White House has spent the entire day claiming that they knew nothing about this until ten days ago, October 15th. Scott McClellan said this repeatedly during his gaggle with reporters this morning. Indeed, he went on to say the following: "Now [i.e., after the notification on October 15th], the Pentagon, upon learning of this, directed the multinational forces and the Iraqi survey group to look into this matter, and that's what they are currently doing."

So McClellan says that the Pentagon only just learned about this. And that's why they only now assigned the Iraq Survey Group to examine what happened at al Qa Qaa.

But Di Rita says that the US government has known about it for 18 months.

So which is it?

They've known about it since just after the war and kept it a secret? Or they just found out about it ten days ago and now they're on the case?

Ustwo · 10-25-2004, 07:44 PM

Quote:

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

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

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

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

In an election week rush:

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

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

An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.

According to NBCNEWS, the HMX and RDX explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.

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

The TIMES left the impression the weapons site had been looted since Iraq has been under US control.

[In a fresh Page One story set for Tuesday on the matter, the TIMES once again omits any reference to troops not finding any explosives at the site when they arrived in April of 2003. Attempts to reach managing editor Jill Abramson late Monday were unsuccessful.]

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

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

Dem vp hopeful John Edwards blasted Bush for not securing the explosives: "It is reckless and irresponsible to fail to protect and safeguard one of the largest weapons sites in the country. And by either ignoring these mistakes or being clueless about them, George Bush has failed. He has failed as our commander in chief; he has failed as president."

A senior Bush official e-mailed DRUDGE late Monday: "Let me get this straight, are Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards now saying we did not go into Iraq soon enough? We should have invaded and liberated Iraq sooner?"

Top Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart fired back Monday night: "In a shameless attempt to cover up its failure to secure 380 tons of highly explosive material in Iraq, the White House is desperately flailing in an effort to escape blame. Instead of distorting John Kerry’s words, the Bush campaign is now falsely and deliberately twisting the reports of journalists. It is the latest pathetic excuse from an administration that never admits a mistake, no matter how disastrous."

Yawn, another liberal lie bites the dust. It grows tiresome.

(Oh and BTW check the latest polls on who the military supports, they are terrified of Kerry)

OFKU0 · 10-25-2004, 08:00 PM

I can only guess what tomorrow brings. Today 380 tons goes missing from its place of origin in Iraq but yesterday, the rage in the media was that Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia were supplying terrorists with the same shit. I guess those countries, especially Syria and Iran can breathe easier for another day before Bush decides to bomb them into oblivion too. At least that's what I read on them there "rumors on the internets."

daswig · 10-25-2004, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

(Oh and BTW check the latest polls on who the military supports, they are terrified of Kerry)

I wonder why.

How many more times does he have to betray them before they realize he is just looking out for their best interests???

OpieCunningham · 10-25-2004, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yawn, another liberal lie bites the dust. It grows tiresome.

Thanks for posting the DrudgeReport.com information. I didn't know how to view it myself.

And thanks for your consistent balance in judging information. Apparently, Drudge is telling us that NBC will tell us that NBC was wrong when it quoted a Pentagon official. Ergo, the liberals are lying.

Interesting.

Quote:

(Oh and BTW check the latest polls on who the military supports, they are terrified of Kerry)

I'll get right on that as soon as I figure out how it is related to the topic.

10-25-2004, 09:30 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	The only thing that really stinks about this story is the timing Very old info, and apparently the explosives were gone before the US forces even got there. Just the NYT's helping out their candidate. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-25-2004, 03:28 PM	#11 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Inexcusable not to secure any number of high priority sites post-invasion. I can continue to vote Bush because the alternative will be horrendous for the war on terror and send the absolute worst message to terrorists, our troops, and our allies. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

10-25-2004, 04:47 PM	#18 (permalink)
jconnolly Guest	Then this brings me back to my original question: What does Bush have to do with this? Your military would be just as incompetent under any President. Heh, this is kind of interesting. When 380 tons of explosives goes missing from a cache in Iraq, it MUST have made its way into the hands of terrorists or the resistance. But when the WMDs are unaccounted for, Saddam MUST have destroyed them back in '91. (This, by the way, is just mindless sarcastic commentary.) Last edited by jconnolly; 10-25-2004 at 04:51 PM..

10-25-2004, 08:00 PM	#38 (permalink)
OFKU0 Junk	I can only guess what tomorrow brings. Today 380 tons goes missing from its place of origin in Iraq but yesterday, the rage in the media was that Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia were supplying terrorists with the same shit. I guess those countries, especially Syria and Iran can breathe easier for another day before Bush decides to bomb them into oblivion too. At least that's what I read on them there "rumors on the internets." __________________ " In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

10-25-2004, 09:45 AM	#4 (permalink)
runtuff Crazy	I've become so suspicious when I read any article, Pro Kerry Pro Bush, or against Bush or Kerry as being politically motivated to influence the elections. I use to think other countries had biased media but we do not. Now I'm not so sure. November 2nd is not going to be here soon enough!!

10-25-2004, 09:50 AM	#6 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	As old of info as it is, let's see a raise of hands of who knew about it before I posted it?

10-25-2004, 02:16 PM	#9 (permalink)
Dostoevsky Psycho Location: Macon, GA	It is funny that I found this thread today. I am in Croatia right now and I keep a journal on anything I feel like writing about. It just so happens that I wrote about this story on page 96. It is very personal and opionated but I will paste it here anyhow for those of you who care to read it. The big story on CNN today is that 380 tons of military grade explosives are missing from depots in Iraq. The UN was aware of the existence of these explosives, but failed to secure them after the war. It is being reported that Bush said he doesn’t have enough troops in Iraq to guard that volume of explosives. Now, the US and UN are concerned that the explosives ‘may’ fall into the ‘wrong hands.’ (Read, the insurgency and terrorists.) First of all, who the hell else would want 380 tons of C4 and other high grade explosives? Hint, it’s not Allowah the neighborhood butcher. Regardless of who took the explosives, I feel very confident that they have made there way into the ‘wrong hands.’ Another thing, we have somewhere around 130,000 troops in Iraq. How many military objectives are more important than securing 380 tons of explosives from ‘the wrong hands?’ George Bush, are you fucking serious right now? We don’t have enough troops to guard something like that? What are we, French? I can’t believe we were so sloppy. If it wasn’t for Kerry’s liberal domestic policies, I may support that sorry piece of shit. Iraq is a complete mess. Then again, my source on this matter is CNN international which should be renamed the European Socialist News for the sake of accuracy. Hopefully there will be more to this story other than the car bombs that will inevitably explode thanks to these unguarded explosives. Well, those are my feelings on the issue, completely unabridged. I hope I haven't ruffled any feathers. They say opions are like belly buttons, everyone has one. -Dostoevsky

10-25-2004, 02:25 PM	#10 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Thanks for that Dostoevsky. It's nice to get some backup from someone who is in that region and from the "other side". Though I gotta say it baffles me how anyone who reads this can still vote Bush. How anyone who reads this can still think that Kerry can't do a better job. I could do a better job using a Magic 8 Ball.

10-25-2004, 03:35 PM	#13 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	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?

10-25-2004, 04:37 PM	#15 (permalink)
jconnolly Guest	The Army Corps of Engineers have estimated that Saddam had 600 THOUSAND tons of weaponry, based on what they have found. Only 110 thousand tons have been destroyed. Could we really have stopped the looters from getting some of that?

10-25-2004, 04:46 PM	#17 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	This stash was already secured. It would have taken troops, but it could be done. For 380 tons of extremely high grade explosives, that were secure, we should have been able to plan for that. You don't start a war with the intention to secure all the weapons they have to prevent them from being used by terrorists, and not have a plan to actually secure all the weapons That's called stupid, short sighted, incompetent and pretty much derelict of duty. Those weapons were neutralized and accounted for by the international community. Now they are... God knows where....

10-25-2004, 05:09 PM	#19 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	No, the military wouldn't. There is plenty of evidence of Bush not listening to the military commanders, both at home and on the field. He chose to make the decisions, as commander in chief, that go counter to those under him. To your second part: Who else would have the 380 tons of explosives, stolen from a warzone? and: I believe that the senate inquiries handled that. There were no weapons, or programs. Saddam had hopes of building one some day when the sanctions were all gone, but as of our invasion he had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. His lack of proof that he had weapons were intended as a smokescreen to make himself look dangerous to Iraq's enemy, Iran. If Iran knew that they were relatively defenseless, nothing would have stopped Iran from overrunning Iraq and deposing, and killing Saddam. Have you not been paying attention?

10-25-2004, 05:11 PM	#20 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Well jconnolly, I think you bring up a very valid point. This was a military fuck up, not an Administration fuck-up. Having said that, where does the buck stop again? Mr Mephisto

10-25-2004, 05:33 PM	#21 (permalink)
JaySpencer Tilted	I would say that it's a monsterous 'Whoops' on all parts!

10-25-2004, 05:42 PM	#24 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	For a completely on-topic post: This stuff is cheaply available on the world market, and Iraq's borders are beyond pourous. What's the hubbub....bub?

10-25-2004, 07:10 PM	#34 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	Drudge says that "NBCNEWS" reporters were embedded with a unit that visited the looted site on April 10, 2003. Now, he gives no supporting names, details or any other facts, so this could disappear like so many other Drudge claims. As the scumbag likes to say, developing....