Damn, how did THAT October surprise fail?

[ElKabong]

http://www.drudgereport.com/nbcw.htm

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON OCT 25 2004 22:45:05 ET XXXXX

NBCNEWS: CACHE OF EXPLOSIVES VANISHED FROM SITE IN IRAQ BEFORE TROOPS ARRIVED...

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

[The source behind the NYT story first went to CBSNEWS' 60 MINUTES last Wednesday, but the beleaguered network wasn't able to get the piece on the air as fast as the newspaper could print. Executive producer Jeff Fager hoped to break the story during a high-impact election eve broadcast of 60 MINS on October 31.]

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.

"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."

Why is the U.N. nuclear agency suddenly warning now that insurgents in Iraq may have obtained nearly 400 tons of missing explosives -- in early 2003?

NBCNEWS Jim Miklaszewski quoted one official: "Recent disagreements between the administration and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency makes this announcement appear highly political."

[boxcar]

The Libs are awful quiet on this thread. Looks like another mainstream media attempt to sway the election has been successfully thwarted.

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

Perhaps you missed this:

OK, so you don't beleive the Pentagon -- I respect that.

But how about the Reporter herself, and verification of the explosives BEFORE the reporter got there?

The NBC Reporter was making their claim based on April 10, 2003. But troops claim the explosives were there on April 3!

Here is the exact find from the April 5th, 2003 BEFORE that reporter even got there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...p;notFound=true


And here is what the NBC reporter is currently saying. Read the transcript of her words.

LATEST BUSH EXCUSE ON WEAPONS DUMP EVAPORATES

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.

MSNBC, 10/26/04 (Transcript):
Amy Robach: 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: 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.

Here's a little Josh Marshall thrown in for your benefit.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ar...0_24.php#003800

The bottom line is troops reported on April 3, the explosives were there and reported on April 5 by the Post article. The site was not secured. The reporter came on Apil 10, and said No Search was condcuted while she was there. But there was one on April 3 as verified in the Post article by troops.

The Pentagon agreed with this, and Bush said he was informed 10 days ago about it. It's all part of the record. Bottom line is 380 tons of explosives were not secured and are now most likely in the hands of rebels.

You are so interested in protecting Bush, that you fail to see the ramifications of this.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Is that the proof? They did not look for or actually see explosives because the bunkers were already bombed, so they assumed the stuff was already blown up? So that is the proof that it was there? LOL.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by kenwoodallpromos
Is that the proof? They did not look for or actually see explosives because the bunkers were already bombed, so they assumed the stuff was already blown up? So that is the proof that it was there? LOL.

Ken

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A31589-2003Apr4&notFound=true

Read the Post link above from April 5, 2003 befroe the reporter got there where troops detail that the explosives were there a week before the reporter was on the scene.

[kenwoodallpromos]

From your link:

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. The engineers also found stocks of atropine and pralidoxime, also known as 2-PAM chloride, which can be used to treat exposure to nerve agents but is also used to treat poisoning by organic phosphorus pesticides.
_________What was found, 2-PAM chloride, is not HMX or RDX.
I was trained on 2-PAM in my military NBC training. A packet is 1 dose, not 380+ tons. Your link does not mention any explosives found, just that it was previously stored there.
Your link proves that the good stuff was already gone, and what was left was counter-NBC medicine.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by kenwoodallpromos
From your link:

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. The engineers also found stocks of atropine and pralidoxime, also known as 2-PAM chloride, which can be used to treat exposure to nerve agents but is also used to treat poisoning by organic phosphorus pesticides.
_________What was found, 2-PAM chloride, is not HMX or RDX.
I was trained on 2-PAM in my military NBC training. A packet is 1 dose, not 380+ tons. Your link does not mention any explosives found, just that it was previously stored there.
Your link proves that the good stuff was already gone, and what was left was counter-NBC medicine.

Well, I'm not an explosives expert, but the article says "thousands" of vials of white powder IN ADDITION to the stocks of 2-PAM chloride you reference.

So thousands of vials of white powder packed three to a box makes up how much? Since we do not know how many thousands from this article we do not know the tonnage.

We do know that troops did stop on April 3 and inspected the site, and found explosive materials. We also know that when the reporter came on April 10th, they did not search (her own words from MSNBC).

[kenwoodallpromos]

Sounds like those vials could have been the tons, but details may take awhile to come out, we'll see.
As I stated in an earlier thread, this could be bad news for Bush. But It is not enough to cost the election because Bush has taken care of problems, like the prison thing, when he finds out about it.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Well, I'm not an explosives expert, but the article says "thousands" of vials of white powder IN ADDITION to the stocks of 2-PAM chloride you reference.

So thousands of vials of white powder packed three to a box makes up how much? Since we do not know how many thousands from this article we do not know the tonnage.

We do know that troops did stop on April 3 and inspected the site, and found explosive materials. We also know that when the reporter came on April 10th, they did not search (her own words from MSNBC).

Oh, please---are you not getting dizzy?:rolleyes:

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by schweitz
Oh, please---are you not getting dizzy?:rolleyes:

You really are not interested in the truth of the matter are you? I will give Ken one thing, he is at least open to the idea of waiting to find out more information.

Go vote for Bush. It'll make you "feel" more informed.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Go vote for Bush. It'll make you "feel" more informed.

screw informed, how about the feeling that we will be more secure.........more comfortable that the 2nd Amendment won't be repealed...........that more money won't come out of my wallet to fund Kerry's socialist idea's etc...etc......

[Secretariat]

The bush adminstration and their media apologists have spent yesterday and today trying to show that the explosives were already missing when the U.S. took Baghdad. They say our troops did not see any of these explosives when they first went to al Qaa Qaa. The IAEA had strongly and repeatedly warned the U.S. about securing these explosives. So certainly we should have had the good sense to confirm whether the weapons were there or not. But if they were already gone, this means we knew about it 18 months ago and, like bush when warned of an imminent attack prior to 9/11, took no action and told no one. These weapons may very well have been used in the past year and half to kill American troops (not to mention Iraqis).

But according to Scotty McClellan, this version is not true. The U.S.had no idea the explosives were missing until we were formally informed eleven days ago. Condi then told bush who, being the decisive executive that he is, wanted to get to the bottom of this and sent the Iraq Survey Group to investigate.

So which is it? The bush admin knew the explosives were not there when we invaded, or they just found out? And if we knew they were missing last year, why did we do nothing about it? If we didn't know whether they were there or not, why didn't we check when the IAEA persistently expressed its concern? It can't be explained away by saying we had destroyed a lot of other stuff. The AP just posted this a short while ago:

"Our greatest concern from both a proliferation standpoint and from a standpoint of danger to human beings was Al-Qaqaa," the IAEA's Fleming said.

Weapons experts are questioning why Al-Qaqaa - once a key facility in Saddam Hussein's effort to build a nuclear bomb - wasn't under 24-hour guard.

The facility was considered "the pre-eminent site for high explosive stockpiles," a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/100...

This place was the Fort Knox of high explosives. It's thirty miles from Baghdad, and for a year and a half we never bothered to check to see if 370,000 tons of this stuff was missing? If true, this goes way beyond criminal incompetence.

But, quite obviously, it's not true. Scotty was lying yesterday when he said the bush admin just found out about the missing explosives. (And where is Scotty today? There is no transcript of any press briefing up at the White House web site. The more lies he has to tell, the deeper they sink, so it looks like they have shut him up.) The bush admin is hoping that their hatchetmen in the media can keep a lid on this story until November 3rd. But the story is moving toward the original version first given by the Nelson Report on Sunday This is a highly influential private newsletter that was referenced on Josh Marshall's web site with a summary of the article. It is a must read that details bush administration cover-up, including pressuring the Iraqi authorities to withhold the information from the IAEA. Here's a bit of it:

Despite pressure from DOD to keep it quiet, the IAEA and the Iraqi Interim Government this month officially reported that 350-tons of dual-use, very high explosives were looted from a previously secure site in the early days of the US occupation in 2003. Administration officials privately admit this material is likely a primary source of the lethal car bomb attacks which cause so many US and Iraqi casualties. In the first presidential candidate debate, on foreign policy, Democratic nominee John Kerry charged that captured munitions and weapons were being turned against Coalition Forces, with US troops suffering 90% of the casualties. But the specifics of the losses from the Al Qa Qaa bunker and building complex, only now being reported, were apparently unknown outside of DOD and the US occupation authorities. The Bush Administration barred the IAEA from any participation in the Iraq invasion and occupation process, and blocked IAEA requests to help in the search for WMD and other dangerous materials.

A highly informed official offered the assessment that, “this is the stuff the bad guys have been using to kill our troops, so you can’t ignore the political implications of this, and you would be correct to suspect that politics, or the fear of politics, played a major role in delaying the release of this information.”

“What the hell WE were doing in the year and a half from the time we knew the stuff was gone, is obviously a huge question, and you can imagine why no one wants to face up to it, certainly not before the election,” an Administration source says.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_...

[sq764]

Originally posted by Secretariat
The bush adminstration and their media apologists have spent yesterday and today trying to show that the explosives were already missing when the U.S. took Baghdad. They say our troops did not see any of these explosives when they first went to al Qaa Qaa. The IAEA had strongly and repeatedly warned the U.S. about securing these explosives. So certainly we should have had the good sense to confirm whether the weapons were there or not. But if they were already gone, this means we knew about it 18 months ago and, like bush when warned of an imminent attack prior to 9/11, took no action and told no one. These weapons may very well have been used in the past year and half to kill American troops (not to mention Iraqis).

But according to Scotty McClellan, this version is not true. The U.S.had no idea the explosives were missing until we were formally informed eleven days ago. Condi then told bush who, being the decisive executive that he is, wanted to get to the bottom of this and sent the Iraq Survey Group to investigate.

So which is it? The bush admin knew the explosives were not there when we invaded, or they just found out? And if we knew they were missing last year, why did we do nothing about it? If we didn't know whether they were there or not, why didn't we check when the IAEA persistently expressed its concern? It can't be explained away by saying we had destroyed a lot of other stuff. The AP just posted this a short while ago:

"Our greatest concern from both a proliferation standpoint and from a standpoint of danger to human beings was Al-Qaqaa," the IAEA's Fleming said.

Weapons experts are questioning why Al-Qaqaa - once a key facility in Saddam Hussein's effort to build a nuclear bomb - wasn't under 24-hour guard.

The facility was considered "the pre-eminent site for high explosive stockpiles," a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/100...

This place was the Fort Knox of high explosives. It's thirty miles from Baghdad, and for a year and a half we never bothered to check to see if 370,000 tons of this stuff was missing? If true, this goes way beyond criminal incompetence.

But, quite obviously, it's not true. Scotty was lying yesterday when he said the bush admin just found out about the missing explosives. (And where is Scotty today? There is no transcript of any press briefing up at the White House web site. The more lies he has to tell, the deeper they sink, so it looks like they have shut him up.) The bush admin is hoping that their hatchetmen in the media can keep a lid on this story until November 3rd. But the story is moving toward the original version first given by the Nelson Report on Sunday This is a highly influential private newsletter that was referenced on Josh Marshall's web site with a summary of the article. It is a must read that details bush administration cover-up, including pressuring the Iraqi authorities to withhold the information from the IAEA. Here's a bit of it:

Despite pressure from DOD to keep it quiet, the IAEA and the Iraqi Interim Government this month officially reported that 350-tons of dual-use, very high explosives were looted from a previously secure site in the early days of the US occupation in 2003. Administration officials privately admit this material is likely a primary source of the lethal car bomb attacks which cause so many US and Iraqi casualties. In the first presidential candidate debate, on foreign policy, Democratic nominee John Kerry charged that captured munitions and weapons were being turned against Coalition Forces, with US troops suffering 90% of the casualties. But the specifics of the losses from the Al Qa Qaa bunker and building complex, only now being reported, were apparently unknown outside of DOD and the US occupation authorities. The Bush Administration barred the IAEA from any participation in the Iraq invasion and occupation process, and blocked IAEA requests to help in the search for WMD and other dangerous materials.

A highly informed official offered the assessment that, “this is the stuff the bad guys have been using to kill our troops, so you can’t ignore the political implications of this, and you would be correct to suspect that politics, or the fear of politics, played a major role in delaying the release of this information.”

“What the hell WE were doing in the year and a half from the time we knew the stuff was gone, is obviously a huge question, and you can imagine why no one wants to face up to it, certainly not before the election,” an Administration source says.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_...
Face it Sec, it was a lie and a pathetic one at best.. Get over it, the jig is up, move on.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by sq764
Face it Sec, it was a lie and a pathetic one at best.. Get over it, the jig is up, move on.

You think he would learn from his defending Rather way past when everybody knew the truth.

[sq764]

Originally posted by schweitz
You think he would learn from his defending Rather way past when everybody knew the truth.

Well, just another case of Kerry jumping the gun and looking like a massive ass in the end.. It's like a broken record..

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by schweitz
You think he would learn from his defending Rather way past when everybody knew the truth.

Yeah, I remember when Secretary was defending Dan Blather's handling of the forged documents, and then when he was boxed in and had to admit to the fraud--he just said, Oh well, the story is still true.

What an ass, I think he must have had a lobodomy sometime in the past.

JM

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by JustMissed
What an ass, I think he must have had a lobodomy sometime in the past. JM
yes, but on a per word typed basis he is leading the fantasy DNC league in Lie's Batted In..............

[lsbets]

It was nice when CBS admitted to the truth and the libs couldn't face us for about a week afterwards. Their silence was telling.

[sq764]

Well when he knows he's caught in another lie, he simply doesn't respond, goes back on the net, and posts 5 more threads hoping they aren't lies..

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
Well when he knows he's caught in another lie, he simply doesn't respond, goes back on the net, and posts 5 more threads hoping they aren't lies..

Really, please tell me which one was a lie.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Really, please tell me which one was a lie.

well, since you said please..

read this thread!! This whole thing was a lie..

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
well, since you said please..

read this thread!! This whole thing was a lie..

Thanks SQ...now I understand why you're for Bush...you do the same research.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Thanks SQ...now I understand why you're for Bush...you do the same research.

Ahh, you mean the truth.. Sorry to offend you with it..

[kenwoodallpromos]

Let's see-- Kerry took Ho Chi Min's side, Saddam's side in 1991, needs to give the world proof before we attack, takes Alawi's side over U.S military, U.N."s side in this U.N. sabatoge of our election, U.N.'s side doubting Af election possible, His NSA Rice's and Bin Laden's side refusing to take him from Sudan.
I'm getting pissed off that Kerry is never on the U.S. side.:confused:

[ElKabong]

Originally posted by Secretariat

This place was the Fort Knox of high explosives. url]


Really? Sounds like WMD to me.

Scoreboard, W !

[kenwoodallpromos]

HDX and RDX Were what Hussein was experimenting with to use to implode nuclear weapons. The U.N. should never have allowed Hussein to retain 300+ tons of it. They should have been destroyed after 1991. The U. N. screwed up and was playing into his hands.
No one saw the actual material after Jan 2002. Seems to me it would not be hard for Hussein to have the stuff taken out the back door or through a wall and left the U.N. seals intact.
Just more games between them. I'm glad Bush called his bluff and said screw the U.N.

______________
Name: Al Qa Qa General Establishment
Other Names: Al Qa Qa State Establishment; al Qa Qaa Government Enterprise; Badr General Establishment
Address/Location: 30-38km south of Baghdad in Yousefiya near Iskandariya and Al Musayyib
Subordinate to: Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization (MIMI)
Size: A huge facility that contained manufacturing and storage plants
Primary Function: Nuclear weapons implosion package development

Description: The Al Qa Qaa State Establishment began supporting the efforts to develop a nuclear weapon implosion package in 1987, the Dhafer Project.[246] Al Qa Qaa was responsible for the explosive filling of long-range missile warheads.[247] A special unit at Al Qa Qaa helped develop and manufacture *****high-explosive lenses, propellants, and detonators needed for the implosion device.[248] Iraq used these detonators to develop a 32-point electronic firing system and experimented with high explosives to produce implosive shock waves. The Al Qa Qaa team also perfected the design of dedicated exploding bridge wire (EBW) detonators, after experimenting with several types.[249] Al Qa Qaa held large stacks of ****imported HMX and RDX explosives and had its own operating RDX production plant.[250]

[kenwoodallpromos]

So 32 tons of RDX and/or HMX was taken out of Qa Qaa by Hussein when it was under U.N. "control". I wonder where it went?

________________

Foreign Affairs Breaking News News
Source: Times of India
Published: Jun 16 2001 Author: Gaurav Kala
Posted on ****06/15/2001 15:20:28 PDT by AM2000

Osama bin Laden's man held with RDX

Plan to blast US embassy unearthed
NEW DELHI: A Sudanese national, said to be working for Osama bin Laden, and his Indian accomplice were arrested by the Delhi Police in a joint operation with central intelligence agencies from south Delhi on Thursday. The accused, said sources on Friday, were preparing to blast the United States embassy.

Abdil Rauf Hawas (30) was arrested after a raid by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police from Nizamuddin area. He was allegedly possessing over 6 kg of RDX, detonators and timers at the time of his arrest, said sources. He was also buying a car, according to the sources, which was to be used for bombing the embassy.

[kenwoodallpromos]

(This is about the Bali bombing by Al Queda.)

Friday Nov. 1

Da'I Bachtiar says they have identified East Javanese man but have not found him yet, along with driver of the van. Bachtiar says they used TNT, RDX, HDX and Ammonium Nitrate.

U.S. ambassador Ralph Boyce says media accusations of U.S. involvement in bombing "inaccurate and unhelpful."

Defense Minister Matori Djalil links bombing to JI and al-Qaeda.

ASIO director Dennis Richardson does the same.

Saturday Nov. 2

International investigation team finishes forensics after less than three weeks on site, concluding that bomb was TNT, RDX and other "materials" including chloride. AFP forensic team member says "we have all we need to nail these bad guys down,"

BIN says bombings involved "skilled foreign experts".

Muchyar Yara says "We are sure that foreign experts along with Indonesian experts or perpetrators were involved."

National Police said bombs were constructed of TNT, RDX and HMX.

AFP

[ljb]

You guys can huff and puff all you want but the truth is:
Bush and gang protected the oil wells in Iraq. This is after all where their real interests were/are.
This lack of proper warfare tactics created a sceanario where tons of dangerous explosives would be unaccounted for.
Much like they poo pooed the PDB they botched this one also. With these guys/gals at the helm we are all in more danger now then prior to 9/11. What other items-actions have they overlooked in their pursuit of wealth?

[boxcar]

Someday you should give some very serious consideration to hiring a team of proctologists to extricate your head from the dark, foul-smelling nether regions of your rectum. You may actually enjoy smelling nice things like coffee, roses, etc, and seeing the beauty of things (including the truth) in the light of day for a change.

Boxcar

[ljb]

Well now I feel better.
The usually verbose Boxcar has finally admited he has no argument with the facts and has resorted to name calling and attempts at humor.
I just love it when the rightys get bit in the arse with the truth! :D :D :D

[Lefty]

lbj, lookes like the truth will bite Kerry and the dems arse and you hopeful followers. He ran with an old story before checking it out and he looks foolish. The weapons were prob gone when we got there. Saddam had these weapons and tons and tons more. Lucky we got there when we did before they were fashioned into nukes for use and sale. Bush was right and this story evidences that. The dems can't spin this story to their favor no matter how they try.

[sq764]

Originally posted by ljb
Well now I feel better.
The usually verbose Boxcar has finally admited he has no argument with the facts and has resorted to name calling and attempts at humor.
I just love it when the rightys get bit in the arse with the truth! :D :D :D

Desperate times call for desperate measures.. Kerry needs something in these late stages.. He thought he had something, but pulled a Rather and it's blowing up in his face.

Can you say 'self-destruction'??

[ljb]

Lefty and sq764,
Sorry gentlemen, you will have to stand in line with Boxcar. The facts are the facts. Large cache of explosives disappears under the Bush gangs watch. The CIA has a report right now that the Bushies are refusing release until after the election. What do you suppose they are trying to hide this time?

[lsbets]

ljb, i really don't feel like retyping the whole post, so I will paste it in here. It seems pretty unlikely to me that those explosives were taken after we invaded, here is my origional post on this subject:

Here is what does not add up in this whole French/Kerry/NY Times/CBS/UN story. To move 380 tons of explosives would take around 40 trucks to do so, and would require some material handling equipment to load it up. Assuming that after we took over Iraq, someone or some group had access to the trucks and MHE, they would then have to go into the site undetected, load the trucks undetected, and then move on some very heavily travelled roads undetected. They would also have to get the fuel to move the trucks at a time when most Iraqis had no access to fuel. I can tell you the trucks would not be able to move undetected. Any movement of more than one vehicle would be noticed in a heart beat and investigated - pulled over and searched. The soldiers securing those routes would notice and act on anything out of the ordinary, and that facility sits in a very heavily travelled area just south of Baghdad. There are only two main roads that could be used to move vehicles of that weight, and both are main supply routes for the military. There is a constant flow of trucks, humvees, and air support over those roads around the clock. If they moved the cargo south, they would either be travelling through Hillah or just east on an unimproved highway. Both routes are constantly monitored and used all the time. If they moved the cargo in any other direction, they would have to go through Baghdad and would move on one of two main supply routes through the city. Their movement would be restricted by bridges and overpasses that could not support the weight of the vehicles. They would also have to travel through numerous checkpoints manned by US personnel whichever way they went. It might be possible, but it does not seem very likely to me that a bunch of looters went in and took 40 truckloads of explosives after the regime fell.

What I would also like to nkow ljb, when you say we did not use proper warfare tactics, where have you been schooled in the tactics of modern warfare? And when you say that all we did was secure oil wells, where do you get your information on troop locations in Iraq? I am realy curious where you get such good and accurate information - lol.

[JustRalph]

it's a little early..........for October surprises.........the Dems had one with 3 days to go last time. I suggest there is more to come

[boxcar]

lsbets writes:

Here is what does not add up in this whole French/Kerry/NY Times/CBS/UN story.

Isbets, what doesn't add up to normal folks, usually makes perfectly good sense to Liberals who, in the final analysis, are much more comfortable living in La La Land where anything is possible, or at least... plausible.

Boxcar

[ljb]

From Lsbets
What I would also like to nkow ljb, when you say we did not use proper warfare tactics, where have you been schooled in the tactics of modern warfare?
Oh excuse me! I just assumed when at war one of the tactics would be to take the enemys weapons/arms/explosive devices. Perhaps Bush had a better idea? Oh wait Bush is not responsible*, and he is going to have an investigation of this matter as soon as he gets done campaining. :D :D :D

*buck passer supreme

[boxcar]

Just finished watching Brit Hume's interview of Paul Bremer on FNC. Why am I not surprised that Bremer who knew the area well -- knew the roads very well that lead into and out of Baghdad, etc. kept saying repeatedly that it was very unlikely that those weapons just upped and walked away between the last AEIA's last inspection, which was early in March and the arrival of the 3rd ID early in April.

As Isbets has pointed out, it would have taken about 38 semis to move that much material over roads that were literally teeming with U.S. troops. Plus the fact that the insurgency wasn't anywhere near as organized as it today. In fact, there wasn't any real insurgency at that time.

But what Bremer did say was much more likely (or plausible) is that Saddam, being true to form, moved those weapons probably early in March after the last AEIA inspection or...very shortly after we invaded Iraq on the 19th of that month. After all, Hussein had a long established track record for playing the shell game with his weapons.

Furthermore, earlier today FNC quoted the commanding officer (a colonel) of the batallion who said that when his 3rd ID moved through that area, which was also used a "rest stop" for a day or two, no one noticed any huge cache of weapons. In fact, the colonel remembers that they met with some resistance when they moved into the area, but the resistance consisted of nothing more than small arms fire and was put down -- with the resistance taking big casualities, of course.

Another question, therefore, that needs to be answered is if there were weapon stockpiles still there when the the 3rd ID arrived, how come the resistance didn't use them against our forces?

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Good thing Bush took out Saddam or he would still HAVE all those dangerous explosives. Lbj, either way, you guys lose on this one. Facts are facts and you libs' fairy tales are desperate pleas.

[Secretariat]

The thing that perplexes me about this weapons thing is based on the following timeline:

1. The IAEAA verified the explosives were there in March.
2. Al Qa Qaa was considered one of the main munitions locations in the country where WMD's were supposed to be.
3. Satellite photos were shown of this site pre-war and the site was under satellite surveilance.
4. The 101st Airborne attested that thousands of boxes with vials of white substance was there on April 3rd. On April 5th some of this was sent back to the Pentagon for testing.

My questions are threefold:

1. If as Isbets claims 40 semis would be needed to move this material wouldn't satellite surveillance pick a large movement like that up during March pre-invasion? Especially since Al Qa Qaa was considered a possible WMD site?

2. Why if Al Qa Qaa was considered a possible WMD site was it not secured, but the Oil ministry was? Why was the Dept of Health and Infectious Diseases not secured which contained vials of AIDS and other infectious diseases in Baghdad, but the Oil Ministry was? If in fact the WMD's were the major threat, why was the oil ministry secured. If in fact the history of the Iraqi people was improtant why were the museums ignored, but the oil minstry was secured? If power and electiricity were important to the people of Iraq, why was the oil ministry given preference over those? All of the above were looted, but the oil minstry was secured...Speaks to priorities of leadership.

3. Why has the Pentagon and the WH given conflicting reports on this story? And why did Bremer say that the WH misjudged the amount of troops needed to contain the looting post-Mission Accomplished?

And yet to this day Bush refuses to admit he has ever made a mistake. Now that's leadershit....

[lsbets]

Sec,

It ain't a claim. Look up the tonnage that the average semi-trailer can carry. Then factor in things like poor roads and maintenance and the size of the load due to density, and it works out to around 40 trucks. Its not hard, its commonsense.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Good thing Bush took out Saddam or he would still HAVE all those dangerous explosives. Lbj, either way, you guys lose on this one. Facts are facts and you libs' fairy tales are desperate pleas.

So now instead of Saddam having the explosives whihc were monitored by the UN, the explosives are unregulated in the hands of insurgents....Yeah, I agree Lefty, we all lose on this one.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by lsbets
Sec,

It ain't a claim. Look up the tonnage that the average semi-trailer can carry. Then factor in things like poor roads and maintenance and the size of the load due to density, and it works out to around 40 trucks. Its not hard, its commonsense.

If 40 trucks, why did not satellite surveillance pick up a large movement like this, especially in lieu that this was supposed to be one of the major locations of WMD?

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
If 40 trucks, why did not satellite surveillance pick up a large movement like this, especially in lieu that this was supposed to be one of the major locations of WMD?

I seem to remember Colin Powell presenting sat. shots of trucks moving into Syria........just before the war. Look it up........

[boxcar]

I'm not going to tackle all the "subquestions" in your "threefold" questions -- but here's the long and the short of it:

1. Satellite surveillance:

a) perhaps the satellite was redirected to spy on other things that were considered more important at the time; or

b) perhaps mother nature wasn't cooperating and bad weather (such as sandstorms which our troops encountered) hindered good surveillance.

2. Security of Sites:

a) Because when the 3rd ID arrived, there weren't any weapons to secure! Neither did the 101st find any.

b) As far as all your other "whys" listed under this section, drop a note to the Generals who were running (read: micromanaging the war effort). Let us know what you find out.

3. Conflicting reports:

a) Haven't read or heard anything about "conflicting reports". The latest I heard from the WH was that the whole thing was under investigation.

b) Bremer's remarks about shortage of troops and looting are irrelevant to this thread. Forget the absurd notion that that kind of tonnage was looted by some band of disenchanted, disgruntled citizens.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Yeah, the U.N. did a swell job, didn't they? Not!

[hcap]

30 Mar 2003---Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells This Week with George Stephanopoulos: "the area... that coalition forces control... happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

So Rummy knows where they are.
Before the war. Constant overflights. Satelite photos.
U2s over Iraq? We paid off the Iraqi top brass to take a powder. Presumably for info as well? How about after knowing all this we didn't track existing weapon sites the UN told us about?

Any one remember David Kay?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/27/wbr.01.html

DAVID KAY, FORMER CHIEF U.S. WEAPONS INSPECTOR:
"Well, Wolf, this is a very large facility.

And I'm afraid we're into a zone of which we won't know definitively what happened. We do know that the U.N. certified in early March that the explosives were there. We know that by May, when the 75th Exploitation Task Force went in, they were not there. There's a gap of about three weeks, two and a half weeks, before the war took place until a month after the war took place and we simply don't know what happened.

I must say, I find it hard to believe that a convoy of 40 to 60 trucks left that facility prior to or during the war, and we didn't spot it on satellite or UAV. That is, because it is the main road to Baghdad from the south, was a road that was constantly under surveillance. I also don't find it hard to believe that looters could carry it off in the dead of night or during the day and not use the road network.

I saw many Iraqi facilities in which they came by pickup truck and constantly -- it's amazing to see whole buildings disappear at the hands of looters who are not organized, who do not have heavy equipment. But I also think we ought to put it in perspective. We're talking about 400 tons of high explosives. It would be a great tool in the hands of insurgents and terrorists. But that's a country that is awash with tens of thousands of tons of explosives that have been used now for well over a year against the coalition forces there."



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/international/middleeast/28bomb.html?oref=login&oref=login

4 Iraqis Tell of Looting at Munitions Site in '03
By JAMES GLANZ and JIM DWYER


BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 27 - Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday.

The Iraqis described an orgy of theft so extensive that enterprising residents rented their trucks to looters. But some looting was clearly indiscriminate, with people grabbing anything they could find and later heaving unwanted items off the trucks.

Two witnesses were employees of Al Qaqaa - one a chemical engineer and the other a mechanic - and the third was a former employee, a chemist, who had come back to retrieve his records, determined to keep them out of American hands. The mechanic, Ahmed Saleh Mezher, said employees asked the Americans to protect the site but were told this was not the soldiers' responsibility.

[ElKabong]

Originally posted by hcap

I must say, I find it hard to believe that a convoy of 40 to 60 trucks left that facility prior to or during the war, and we didn't spot it on satellite or UAV. That is, because it is the main road to Baghdad from the south, was a road that was constantly under surveillance. I also don't find it hard to believe that looters could carry it off in the dead of night or during the day and not use the road network.

.

David Kay should read the Duefler report....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40946

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Oct. 6, Charles Duelfer, an adviser to the CIA, did not rule out Saddam's transfer of Iraqi missiles and weapons of mass destruction to Syria, reports Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.

Duelfer agreed that a large amount of material had been transferred by Iraq to Syria before the March 2003 war.

"A lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria," Duelfer said. "There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points. We've got a lot of data to support that, including people discussing it. But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say."

The Iraq Survey Group, headed by Duelfer, said Russia, Syria, Jordan and other arms suppliers were paid from Iraqi oil revenues.

A CIA report, authored by the Iraq Survey Group, identified Russia and Syria atop a list of 12 arms suppliers to Iraq until the U.S.-led war against Baghdad started in March 2003.

The report listed Russia and Syria above North Korea — regarded as the leading missile proliferator to the Middle East — as leading suppliers to Baghdad.

Jordan was the third largest supplier of weapons to Iraq.

After Jordan came Belarus, China, India, North Korea, South Korea, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, France, Romania and Turkey. The report said these countries were involved in both "weapons of mass destruction and arms-related procurement."

The report said Saddam diverted money from the U.N. oil-for-food program to pay for both conventional and nonconventional weapons and components.

The report said state-owned companies in Russia and Syria defied U.N. sanctions and supplied weapons and platforms to Baghdad. The report said Syria also served as the leading route for illegal arms supplies from Europe and other countries.

Several of Iraq's neighbors were said to have joined in the secret military effort to aid Baghdad. The report — based on interviews with senior Iraqi officials and 40 million pages of documents and classified intelligence — cited Jordan and Turkey as leading suppliers to the Saddam regime.

[hcap]

Elkie you are clutching at straws.

Are you also going to try to fit this into the "No way the buck stops here" mentality of the bush sycophants....

Seven Nuclear Sites Looted
Iraqi Scientific Files, Some Containers Missing

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 10, 2003; Page A01

BAGHDAD -- Seven nuclear facilities in Iraq have been damaged or effectively destroyed by the looting that began in the first days of April, when U.S. ground forces thrust into Baghdad, according to U.S. investigators and others with detailed knowledge of their work. The Bush administration fears that technical documents, sensitive equipment and possibly radiation sources have been scattered.

If so, there are potentially significant consequences for public health and the spread of materials to build a nuclear or radiological bomb. President Bush had said the war was fought to prevent the spread of "the world's most dangerous weapons."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36985-2003May9?language=printer

Remember Rummy knowing where the gold was buried?
Hey, maybe he knew that the french were in secret bunkers jest ou'side Saddams' palace. Hell, he probably has secret satellite photo's of Chirac bending WAY over and presenting his stolen honor to ole' Saddam.

But then again he presented his own rummy hole.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

[hcap]

One other comment from Professor Nathan Brown of George Washington University....

http://www.juancole.com/

One CPA document (discussed below) makes clear that the extent of looting has been known—not merely suspected but documented and evaluated—for some time. The reason we don’t know when the explosives disappeared is that we were not securing or monitoring the site. In other words, our lack of knowledge about the date of the disappearance is itself an indication that nobody was watching one of the most important military production sites in the country.Thus, to proclaim now that we don’t know what happened is not evidence of an open mind; it is evidence of an open barn door. Why did Bush wait until October 2004 to look into the matter? The 18 ½-month gap is no more to Bush’s credit than the 18 ½-minute gap was to Nixon’s. It is the absence of evidence that is the problem.

But the absence of evidence is not evidence of absent-mindedness. There were people who said a year and a half ago that this needed attention. In particular, the IAEA was trying to examine the site from the very end of the war. We barred them. In other words, the failure to monitor was not an oversight but a policy decision. It may have been partly based on the size of the American force, but it was also based on an ideological hostility to the United Nations.

....Actually, we do know a little bit more than has been reported. But the little evidence we do have hardly supports the Bush case. What has been widely reported is that during and immediately after the war, some American military units and journalists briefly visited the site. What has not been reported is that on 15 April 2004—a year after the war—CPA head Paul Bremer issued a regulation transferring the employees of some military industries to various parts of the Iraqi government. I assume the point was to ensure that these critical people would get paid and not defect to the insurgents. That regulation can be viewed here.

http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20040420_CPAORD_75_Realignment_of_Military_Industr ial_Companies__with_Annex_A.pdf

Annex A to the regulation mentions al-Qaqaa (see p. 3 of the annex) and the extent of damage and looting there. 37% of the buildings were destroyed and fully 85% of its machines were destroyed or looted.

In other words, the place was very utterly trashed as of this past April, a year into the Iraqi occupation.

[ljb]

From Lefty,
Good thing Bush took out Saddam or he would still HAVE all those dangerous explosives. Lbj, either way, you guys lose on this one.
I guess you think those explosives are less dangerous in the hands of Osama and his henchmen.
Like I said Lefty,
Thanks to the bungling efforts of the gang of four, we are less safe now then prior to 9/11.

[boxcar]

hcap wrote:

Elkie you are clutching at straws.

Not so fast, hcap.

Seven Nuclear Sites Looted
Iraqi Scientific Files, Some Containers Missing

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 10, 2003; Page A01

BAGHDAD -- Seven nuclear facilities in Iraq have been damaged or effectively destroyed by the looting that began in the first days of April, when U.S. ground forces thrust into Baghdad, according to U.S. investigators and others with detailed knowledge of their work. The Bush administration fears that technical documents, sensitive equipment and possibly radiation sources have been scattered.

So, tell me, Hcap, just how many tons of explosive materials were looted from these seven cites during the first days of April?

Boxcar

[sq764]

Originally posted by ljb
From Lefty,
Good thing Bush took out Saddam or he would still HAVE all those dangerous explosives. Lbj, either way, you guys lose on this one.
I guess you think those explosives are less dangerous in the hands of Osama and his henchmen.
Like I said Lefty,
Thanks to the bungling efforts of the gang of four, we are less safe now then prior to 9/11.

Well, I have to say, if this country was safe before 9/11, it would have never happened.. There seemed to have been a Dem in office for 8 of the 9 years prior to 9/11, but I can't quite recall his name... He must have been preoccupied for quite a while to let the 9/11 planning go uninterrupted for years..

Leave the protection of the country to the Republicans, the Dems have proven they can't do it.

[ljb]

From sq764
Well, I have to say, if this country was safe before 9/11, it would have never happened..
Wait a minute here. PDB "Osama determined to attack U.S."
What did our leaders do? Go on vacation.
nearly 400 tons of explosives lost in Iraq.
What did our leaders do? call for an investigation after the fact.
Get real sq, the gang of four was/is asleep at the gate.

[sq764]

Originally posted by ljb
From sq764
Well, I have to say, if this country was safe before 9/11, it would have never happened..
Wait a minute here. PDB "Osama determined to attack U.S."
What did our leaders do? Go on vacation.
nearly 400 tons of explosives lost in Iraq.
What did our leaders do? call for an investigation after the fact.
Get real sq, the gang of four was/is asleep at the gate.

We had multiple US embassies attacked and had many deaths because of it.. What did our then-commander-in-chief do?? Sent 2 friggin cruise missiles.. That was IT!!

Typical Democratic tree-hugging, save the whales, Greenpeace repsonse to a terror attack.. LJB, Get some balls..

[Lefty]

lbj, you know for a fact these weapons are in the hands of Osama? Like Kerry and his bunch you just say things, facts be damned. You say we're less safe? Don't remember any attacks on U.S. since 9/11 so guess facts bite your arse again.

[Secretariat]

Uh..Oh...it looks like Minneapolis News 5 has video of the 101st Airborne viewing the explosives....

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

[ljb]

From Lefty,
lbj, you know for a fact these weapons are in the hands of Osama?
Thanks to the ineptitude of our fear breeding leaders we don't know where the weapons are. I heard a rumor that the girl scouts may be suspect. ;)
Get Real Lefty, turn off that faux station and find out what is really happening in the world.

[sq764]

Originally posted by ljb
From Lefty,
lbj, you know for a fact these weapons are in the hands of Osama?
Thanks to the ineptitude of our fear breeding leaders we don't know where the weapons are. I heard a rumor that the girl scouts may be suspect. ;)
Get Real Lefty, turn off that faux station and find out what is really happening in the world.

Do you ever find it odd that only you and Sec believe the drivel you spout out? Do you ever wonder why everyone else knows the truth and only you 2 have these ridiculous pack of lies in your heads?

I guess this falls under the theory of if you say it enough times in your head, you will believe it as real..

Take off your Republican-hating glasses for just one moment and see the real world.. You'll be surprised what the truth can do for your mindset.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
Do you ever find it odd that only you and Sec believe the drivel you spout out? Do you ever wonder why everyone else knows the truth and only you 2 have these ridiculous pack of lies in your heads?

I guess this falls under the theory of if you say it enough times in your head, you will believe it as real..

Take off your Republican-hating glasses for just one moment and see the real world.. You'll be surprised what the truth can do for your mindset.

Apparently, the Minneapolis News 5 and their embedded reporters with the AB 101 have some doubts as well.

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

[Lefty]

lbj, if I turn off Fox then all I get is the lying left and false documents? Why don't you libs like fair and balanced instead of just the left slant? Are you that brain numb?

[sq764]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Apparently, the Minneapolis News 5 and their embedded reporters with the AB 101 have some doubts as well.

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

At least we agree on something.. We agree that Minneanapolis News has doubts about whether the pictures they showed were the weapons in question.. Since, of course, they mentioned that at the tail end of their article..

[boxcar]

How conveniet that so close to the election the IAEA just happens to release a memo on an old story -- on something that happened months ago. Lest we forget, this less-than-stellar orginization has an axe to grind with Bush over the president's constructive criticism of their inspections before the war. And, of course, the U.N., a pathetic, inept, miserable failure in very many respects has no love for Bush.

Add to all this that CBS tried to do Bush in on his military service with phony, fake, fraudlent records, and the NY Times has already endorsed Bush, we can immediately see these entities coming together for one last shot at Bush right before the election. And keep in mind, that if this kind of cheap political stunt was turned around and Kerry was on the receiving end, the world would not be able to bear the inevitable outrcry.

Ralph Peters of the NY Post lays out the simple but at the same time exceedingly plausible and reasonable case for what happened at Al-Quqaa.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/32832.htm

It amazes me how quickly the Left forgets what a conniving, scheming, lying, cheating, murderous charcter Saddam was. Yet...Sadaam is somehow above reproach...above suspicion in all this. Just goes to demonstrate the utter and complete moral banruptcy of the Left. The Left will give Sad Sack Saddam a free pass on this, while viciously attacking Bush without any shred of evidence that the weapons were there when the 3Rd ID. arrived. And the Left's argument assumes that Saddam was the quite the village idiot, not having enough sense to hide or move weapons in face of an imminent invasion. But the problem with this assumption is that Saddam has skillfully played the weapons shell game for many years, and the world knows this.

Boxcar

[ljb]

Boxcar,
You may not know this but, any postings from links to the nypost are considered the same as data from faux. And as has been statistically proven watching faux makes one stupid. I hope this clears things up for you.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
At least we agree on something.. We agree that Minneanapolis News has doubts about whether the pictures they showed were the weapons in question.. Since, of course, they mentioned that at the tail end of their article..

Weren't you the person who belevied that Abu Gharib was a fraternity hazing? No, sorry, that was Rush. Wait a minute...same difference.

Look at the pix and read the articles, and "quotes" of the soldiers and people there. Are you questioning our troops again?

[sq764]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Weren't you the person who belevied that Abu Gharib was a fraternity hazing? No, sorry, that was Rush. Wait a minute...same difference.

Look at the pix and read the articles, and "quotes" of the soldiers and people there. Are you questioning our troops again?

The one quote from the soldier was:

"We can stick it in those and make some good bombs." a soldier told our crew.

Ok, so let's, analyze this statement... A soldier said that these were explosives... Ok, what does that tell us..

It tells us these were explosives!!! What in the world does that have to do with identifying these as the 400 tons lost in Iraq?

Is there a paragraph I am missing here?

[ljb]

from sq764
Is there a paragraph I am missing here?
Sq, you are missing more then a paragraph. ;) You seem to be missing the whole book. You don't happen to watch faux do you ?

[sq764]

Originally posted by ljb
from sq764
Is there a paragraph I am missing here?
Sq, you are missing more then a paragraph. ;) You seem to be missing the whole book. You don't happen to watch faux do you ?

I didn't you would answer my question.. You're getting more pathetic as the days go by..

[ljb]

So what you are saying is yes you do watch faux. Is this correct?

[sq764]

Originally posted by ljb
So what you are saying is yes you do watch faux. Is this correct?

This is like arguing with my dog, except that he can have a neutral and fair view of things once in a while..

You got caught up in a lie that your hero Kerry bought into and it came back to make you look stupid. Just wipe the egg off and move on..

Do like your other hero Michael Moore does, state your lies, get your fat blob of shit ass proven to be a liar, and move on to another venue to start the process over..

Don't you get sick of being wrong?

[Tom]

Originally posted by JustMissed
Yeah, I remember when Secretary was defending Dan Blather's handling of the forged documents, and then when he was boxed in and had to admit to the fraud--he just said, Oh well, the story is still true.

What an ass, I think he must have had a lobodomy sometime in the past.

JM

His brain was last seen in January, 2003. Some suspect that it disappeared between March and April. Minn News 5 has video of a head, but it is not clear that there is anything inside. Some speculate that the moon's sudden disappearence last night is related to the missing brain, but more information is needed.
The question is how such a closed and sealed mind could get out in the first place. :D

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
You guys can huff and puff all you want but the truth is:
Bush and gang protected the oil wells in Iraq. This is after all where their real interests were/are.
This lack of proper warfare tactics created a sceanario where tons of dangerous explosives would be unaccounted for.
Much like they poo pooed the PDB they botched this one also. With these guys/gals at the helm we are all in more danger now then prior to 9/11. What other items-actions have they overlooked in their pursuit of wealth?

You ignore history, laddy. The danger was that SH would set the oil wells on fire, as he did in Kuwait. THAT is why they were secured. You keep spreading this outright LIE that we went in there for oild and yet you nor any of your other lying little bastard DNC stooges can offer one iota that we whav etaken a drop of oil from the Iraqi's Put up or shut up, YFLB!
BTW, I was in Michigan specifically looking for you this week. I saw a slime trail on the SOuthfiled, but could not get through the construction...was that yours????

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by ljb
So what you are saying is yes you do watch faux. Is this correct?

It's FOX damn it!

As in,

GO FOX YOURSELF!


OK?

[Secretariat]

It really bothers me when you got guys like Giulanni out there blaming our troops for this.....

Apparently, this not securing munitions dumps was common practice, despite the reservations of many soldiers.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/29/anaconda/index_np.html

[hcap]

Boxcar-the Foggy One Pontificates....Not so fast, hcap.

Seven Nuclear Sites Looted
Iraqi Scientific Files, Some Containers Missing

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 10, 2003; Page A01

BAGHDAD -- Seven nuclear facilities in Iraq have been damaged or effectively destroyed by the looting that began in the first days of April, when U.S. ground forces thrust into Baghdad, according to U.S. investigators and others with detailed knowledge of their work. The Bush administration fears that technical documents, sensitive equipment and possibly radiation sources have been scattered.

So, tell me, Hcap, just how many tons of explosive materials were looted from these seven cites during the first days of April?

Boxcar
Seven sites, which may have contained radioactive byproducts, among other items. Remember the administration alarmed us about this in their drumbeat to war. The "mushroom cloud" that Saddajm could launch against us?????? Well not quite, but a prelude to a real danger. A dirty bomb certainly. AND TONS are not needed. Probably hundreds of pounds. Got a wheel barrel?

So the NUK-U-LAR, (amazing that the preznit pronounces this just like Homer Simpson), danger THAT DID EXIST for real, was NOT protected. Maybe this is not proof that the 380 tons were carted away by looters. But does go to modus operandi of priorities of the invasion.

[delayjf]

It really bothers me when you got guys like Giulanni out there blaming our troops for this..... Apparently, this not securing munitions dumps was common practice, despite the reservations of many soldiers.

If this was a problem, its a command failure. These decissions are made much lower than the Presidental level.

[lsbets]

Apparantly, according to the MAJ who briefed at the Pentagon today, the site was secured, and weapons were destroyed. Too bad the media and Kerry didn't check the facts.

[hcap]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1104-01.htm

Soldiers Describe Looting of Explosives
Iraqis piled high-grade material from a key site into trucks in the weeks after Baghdad fell, four U.S. reservists and guardsmen say.
by Mark Mazzetti

WASHINGTON — In the weeks after the fall of Baghdad, Iraqi looters loaded powerful explosives into pickup trucks and drove the material away from the Al Qaqaa ammunition site, according to a group of U.S. Army reservists and National Guardsmen who said they witnessed the looting.

After this election, the only thing that is obvious to me is that the republicans play politics better. Congratulations, guys.
Four more years of bush......ugggghhhhhh!!!!!!!

[Tom]

Thanks for the congrats, Hcap. I knew when you thought it over, you would see how great this election turned out to be. Remmber, Osama want sot kill you, but George Bush will keep you safe!

Hmmmmm, 4 more years of Bush, then 8 years of Jeb.
Actually, 41 could run again if he wnated to., so we could have a Bush dynasty until 2021. Ahhhhh. Life is good!:D

[Lefty]

hcap, don't think Repubs play politics better but our side liked our candidate and what he stood for. Your side just hated Bush. That's the diff.