380 tons of high explosives missing in Iraq, for over a year.
 

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
also Here

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.

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

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

Hmm, the second article described them as thus:
Seems hard to move something "Massive" more quickly than we could secure them.

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

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!!

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?

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

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=

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.

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

http://www.bamberg.army.mil/webimage/HMMWV-IED-2.gif
http://www.blackfive.net/photos/the_...after_ied1.jpg

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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 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.

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....

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.)

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?

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

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

But does he make battlefield decisions and troop deployments?

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!

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...."

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?

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.

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

(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.

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...

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???? :crazy:

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

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.

Not sure where dawsig got his contradictive info.

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.

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:

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)

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."

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??? :D

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