I really don't think anyone is lying about anything. The reality is that there are still stories flying around about these munitions, the amount, where they went, etc. No one has a solid irrefutable story.

Secondly and most importantly, it is a priority to secure enemy caches of weapons in whatever form. This is standard operating procedure. This is like telling a battlefield commander to shoot back when shot at, it goes without saying. This is something that no officer (even a relatively inexperienced 1st Lt such as myself) needs to be told.

The Administration had no need to tell the military to secure ordinance. Obviously they understand that, because our military has secured over 400,000 tons already.

I watched the video and it appears that, of all things someone would find in an ammunitions dump, is, at the very most, product used to create explosives, explosive detonation material, and explosives.

CJ your above quote assumes that all explosives are alike. Your logic is, if a box says explosives on it, therefor it MUST be the missing explosives!.

Blasting caps are explosives, we saw an open box of them. I do not deny that there were boxes with "explosives" in them, however, for your statement to hold water (as you like to say), then provide PROOF that what was in the boxes, in the video were:

a.) Full of the type of "explosives" that are of concern

and

b.) It is the boxes from the Video that are missing.

If you can't you are playing games with reality. Further you inadvertently are placing the deaths of many hundreds of dead Soldiers (because you assume that the missing explosives MUST have been what killed them, even though you even lack proof of THAT) on the shoulders of the Soldiers and Officers featured in that video. Without solid evidence that is completely shameful!

Redliner, perhaps you should take a few minutes to go back and read this post. I posted this almost directly after the link to the video. I have already supplied the evidence you are asking for.

1) The explosives marked in the video have a hazard desigation of 1.1D, which if you'll take a look at the links provided are high explosives including RMX and HMX as well as other lethal things. They are not blasting caps as you are suggesting. Blasting caps would be classified as group B, not group D, please check your facts.

Detonators were also found on site, because these explosives require detonators to explode.

As I have also said in previous posts, it cannot be determined without a shadow of a doubt that these explosives are RDX or HMX (that would require the UN Code), but given the circumstantial evidence it is very likely that they are. Even if they aren't they are going to be some form of high explosive, the same ones killing our troops in Fallujah.

2) The news report claims that they were in the area of the Al Qaqaa facility according to GPS coordinates and by asking the 101st. Furthermore, one of the boxes shown even says "Al-Qaqaa" on the side of it. I think it is pretty clear where they are.

The video is not clear on how many tons of explosives were present, but it certainly does disprove the administration's theory that these missing explosives were "carried off before the invasion".

So please recheck your facts before accusing me of playing games with reality.

I'm uncomfortable with the way you phrased your questions Wertz, but I'll roll with 'em.

1. There's no good reason to leave 350 tons of explosives and related materials unsecured. In a war not everything goes perfectly. This one does seem particuarly FUBAR since people are being blown to smithereens in Baghdad with depressing frequency. For the Bush Administration which has trumpeted the "progress" being made in Iraq it's an embarassment of major proportions. But if Bush is reelected it's political signifcance is nil.

2. Neither. Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. This was an act of stupidity that may be coming back to bite the U.S. in the butt for sometime to come.

3. Nobody can say with any certainty. I would suspect they are, but who can say. Don't go asking Dubya. He'll just tell you how firm and resolute he is.

How did I guess that you would come back by claiming I posted something that I did not.

For you ease, since you obviosly skip key words in sentences, I will repost my writing.



Where did I say they couldn't be "high explosives"? YOU HAVE FAILED to PROVIDE PROOF that these explosives WERE the ONES that are MISSING!

Nice video, but it provides NO PROOF. It provides ZERO PROOF that these were THE missing explosives, and it PROVIDES ZERO PROOF that any of the explosives in the video were USED to KILL AMERICAN SOLDIERS.

To make such an assumption, as John Kerry has as clearly wrong and shows a complete lack of logic.

CJ Wrote:

Then........

CJ Wrote:

CJ also wrote:

His response to my:



But forgets that earlier in the post I wrote:

Where do I suggest that all that was seen in the video was blasting caps?

Seems this is a bit of the "pot calling the kettle black" game CJ.

Provide the proof (and I wish Kerry would also), before placing the blood of our Soldiers on American Soldiers hands. That is, afterall, what is going on here.

According to the web site CJ gave earlier, we are given a break down of what UN inspectors noted in each site and sealed. Iraqi Military Industry. According to this easy to read chart Al Qaqaa had Aerial bombs, TNT, and solid rocket propellants, Proximity fuzes for 155 mm and cluster munitions, and Fallujah had the HMX and RDX explosives. But Al Qaqaa had them, now they don't, they are being used in Fallujah?

In this thread and with the news reports, it is mentioned that all it took was bolt cutters to get into these places. If the UN secured these weapons, why weren't they secured? I mean if the UN had done a great job at securing all the explosives, then there wouldn't be 3 tons floating around Iraq.

And I have yet to hear an explanation as to how these 'looters' got by our security forces with 3 tons of explosives and took these explosives to Fallujah.

I think you mentioned something about Do the Math in an earlier thread?

Hey Josh, not to be rude, but a ton is what, 2000 lbs isn't it? Standard legal weight in the U.S for hauling freight cross country is 80,000lbs spread across the axles to go across the bridges.
For the amount being thrown out there it would only require 10 Semi. I doubt Iraq has to deal with the weight restrictions we do here in the states so it could be done with less.
Also if the Semi are true heavy duty haulers like you will find in Canada and parts of Texas you would need less.







I deal with cargo theft on a daily basis and stealing that ain't that hard to do. Hell the LA basin alone accounts for 2 millions dollars of cargo loss daily. That's just from Oxnard over to Apple Valley and down to San Diego.
If you eveer sit down to figure out how many illegals are smuggled into America you should get an idea just how easy it is to move things unnoticed.
Hell they look for drugs under controlled conditions here in the states and STill miss the majority of it.
If the kind of chaos Iraq is experiencing is wide spread you could easily move it past troops who are probably not that interested in what a semi is hauling. They are looking for bad guys. Not their fault, they are too busy looking out for EVERYTHING else.
I doubt it would go out in a convoy line since you want to not attract attention.
And I am sorry folks , but moving 380 tons of anything requires no real effort.

((((Hasn't anybody on this site ever held an actual sweat for your pay job?? or are you all technogeeks ))))
Again even standard Spec'd trucks for Over The Road trucking can handle 80,000 lbs. That limit IS negotiable
Road conditions are somewhat of a factor, but NOT as much as you would expect. Give me a few West By Gawd Virginia coal truck drivers or a few of the Texans and I'll show you what "Get 'er Done" can do, even in the worst of conditions.

Then you also understand what the "load" of the weight does to everything from the springs, to the ball joint to the transaxles to the engine. Then you also understand that the load, along with the oppressive heat and road conditions would make carrying heavy loads, over rough terrain, in oppressive heat an extreme task even for highly maintained semi's.

None of these are present in the LA basin. I wonder just how many spare semi trailer parts were available AFTER the outbreak of hostilities.

On the flipside, if Saddam wanted them moved PRIOR to the invasion, all of the above would not matter as he probably had an abundance of French and German parts readily available.

Semi Trucks entering and exiting an ammo dump would be a bit suspicious, and I don't really know too many truck drivers wanting to take "high explosives", down rough terrain, in ill maintained semi's. It would be a suicide mission at best.

Edited to add:

Does throwing 50lbs bales of hay count?

Spoken like a true spoiled American Redliner . Heavy duty trucks can take a hell of a beating. get outside of the states and you will not find the well maintained vehicles you find here. But they get the job done and done well. Even with worn out vehicles.
As for the nature of the load. just don't tell them.
Also since jobs and money are so scarce there right now it wouldn't be hard to find takers.

You can run one in and then wait. hiding in plain sight Red.
Iraq can get hot Red, but so can Texas and Arizona, and there are still guys running here with no air conditioning.


and 50lb bales does indeed count. hot work there Red.

Absolutely correct. And if it was moved with a small number of large trucks, in a well planned operation using a staggered time-frame with varied routes, it would have been relatively easy to avoid our guys - whose focus was entirely different.

But I have to say, given the length of this thread so far, that I feel it is absolutely ridiculous to be focusing on just the 377 tons of HE, whatever happened at Al Qa'qa'a. No one has a clue as to how many munitions were left at the time of the collapse of Saddam’s regime. What is perfectly clear is that the missing explosives under discussion are only a small part of total stockpiles supposed to be in excess of 650,000 tons - and that's a conservative estimate of the holdings of what was one of the most militarized nations in the world.

I will state again, for the benefit of those who seem to have missed it: It is not RDX, HMX, Semtex, C-4 or any other demo-type explosive that is involved in most of the devices killing our guys. Most of the IEDs that target US and coalition forces are constructed of military ordnance - artillery and mortar rounds, mines and grenades, etc.

Spoiled American? Oh, my, no, just realistic. We are speaking about machines. They have no "will", no "go for it spirit". They, my friend, break down and need replacement parts.

A spoiled American assumes that the parts are always available. As the Father of a Truck driving American Soldier that spent 16 months DRIVING in Iraq, He (not just my opinion, but the opinion of someone who's been there DRIVING SEMI'S) finds the "looting with available semi's" scenerio hard to beleive.

Most of the Semi's that he ran across were in such ill repair they could hardly handle half a load.

I was not thinking when I type the last one. CalTrans on bridges uses a load calc of 20,000 lbs per axle static and dynamic load(Source). I was thinking 20 wrote 2 and did the calc for 2. Now I was thinking single axel so lets redo the math. (80,000 is a double trailer, haven't seen those in Iraq, and if you taken in account the testimony of the people who loaned the cars and trucks, they where all rider single axle or flat bed, so I think the 20,000 lbs will do. Also if you go to the web site you will see numbers like 34,000 and what not, that includes the front axel loads, well front axel loads are not considered when a vehicle is loaded.)

400 tons = 800,000 lbs / 20,000 lbs per veh = 40 veh or 40 trips.

Yes less then 200 but more then 10. Closer to your number, but 40 is more noticeable then 10.

Even though we redid the calc, this does not answer my question. My question is:

Again, spare parts is a red herring. i am sure that many of the vehicles your son sees ARE rolling garbage. So what. So are MANY of the ones the Mexican use and they move lots of freight in a day as well.

The point is that it really would not be anywhere CLOSE to a logistical nightmare to move the tonnage we are talking about.

Regardless of the highways

Regardless of spare parts

Regardless of the condition of the trucks

Would I want to try it myself under the nose of American troops,,NO

But I could move it easily with just some temp labor.
As for the sneaking, dunno, might be fun to try as an exercise. if I didn't have to worry about getting shot. Maybe I can hire as a consultant to the military

Christoper:

Losing an axle would make hauling a load tough, but fair enough, I can only agree to disagree.

But one thing keeps running through my mind.

If it is so possible that 20 to 40 semi trucks, or 1000 small pickups could plausibly slip by American Forces after occupation, then why is it equally implausible that WMD, or WMD production equipment (Please note I said equipment, not buildings), could not also slip by a small group of inspectors?

It seems if you beleive one scenerio you must also beleive the possibility of the second.

Josh
Legal limit in the states is 48000 in a single 53' trailer. adjusted to spread across the axles. If you use doubles you can fudge the totals some more with more axles.
I would imagine the trucks in a desert environment are heavy duty to survive long enough to make a profit without massive expense for repairs.

no i would do it with about 12 -15 trucks just to stay safe and avoid the loss of speed that heavy loads bring.

Again as for the sneakiness factor. I wouldn't try it. But then agai those who do such things are VERY creatives. and if it were seen that US troops were distracted it would be easier. Especially since they are so pre occupied by so many other things.

I personally wouldn't lay this on our troops though. Hell just how much are they supposed to cover in a day. I am amazed at what they do Do.

Thats why trucking companies LOVE ex military. Not afraid to get dirty and get it done.



I won't argue that point. Hell i agree.
I think my argument kinda supports what you just said Red.
Logistically it just ain't that hard to accomplish. as for the WMDs, well that was even less weight total wasn't it? Even easier.

Redliner, I've got to take Christopher's side on this aspect of the debate.

I've watched smugglers' trucks come across the border from Pakistan into Afghanistan and head back out without a break - ancient vehicles held together with tape and wire coming over terrain that is far more forbidding than that in central Iraq. In the mid-90's I sat and observed trucks smuggling oil across the Turkish border with improvised tanks leaking fuel all the way. In their greed, they not only built tanks on the beds and inside the trailers, they built low-hanging fuel tanks that scraped the ground on the rough roads. Sure, a few of'em blew and burned with their drivers inside - but the rest continued on, desperate for the cash.

There are plenty of big trucks in Iraq that are much newer and in far better condition than the vehicles I witnessed in either of those examples.

You cannot base an estimate of what could have happened on a viewpoint that only sees through the prism of our standards and ideas of what is feasible. And don't even bother bringing safety into the equation.

Red, I am not going to sit here and beat my head up against a wall. If you aren't going to acknowledge what I have posted then that really isn't my problem, but it also means we aren't going to be having a meaningful discussion either.

That video is far from zero proof, and I think you know that. They are clearly at the Al-Qaqaa facility. Do you deny that? Furthermore, I have shown you a very small list of what kind of explosives would have that labeling, rather than draw the rational conclusion of "well that might be RDX or HMX afterall" you choose to say, you haven't shown any proof of those being the explosives that were missing. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink I suppose.


It is quite simple Yehoshua, one of the questions for debate was: Do you believe that all 350 tons of explosives are still within Iraq - or have they been exported elsewhere? If so, where?

I have stated quite a few times now that I believe that the missing explosives from Al-Qaqaa are being used by Iraqi insurgents and terrorists attacking our soldiers all over Iraq. The insurgents have been using explosives to target our soldiers for several weeks now, it really isn't too much of a logical leap to assume that these insurgents likely got their explosives and weapons from the various weapons caches located in Iraq. Al Qaqaa was one of those caches and I gave an example of the explosives potentially being used in Fallujah for illustrative purposes. It really isn't that difficult to follow I don't think.

If you'd like to refute my hypothesis please do so, but mangling my words and then throwing them back at me isn't an effective debate tactic.


I'm not the one blaming our soldiers, if you'll take a look a few posts back you'll see that our beloved hero Rudy Giuliani is doing that. In fact I have done the opposite and stated that the soldiers have done their jobs admirably and the administration is at fault.

edited to add: There has been an update to the ABC News story here. There are a few additional pictures up, including IAEA seals, which would again indicate that these were the explosives in question:

As the article says, the story is still developing. My understanding of this update is that in combination of the fact that those barrels were labled as 1.1D and the IAEA seals were present, we are in fact looking at the explosives in question.

Where are you getting your numbers?

Here are the general rules as outline by CalTrans:
GENERAL RULE 35550.

1. The gross weight on any one axle shall not exceed 20,000 pounds, and the gross weight upon any one wheel, or wheels, supporting one end of an axle, shall not exceed 10,500 pounds.
2. The gross weight limit for any one wheel, or wheels, shall not apply to vehicles the loads of livestock.
3. The maximum wheel load is the lesser of the following:
   1. The load limit established by the tire manufacturer, on the tire sidewall.
   2. A load of 620 pounds per lateral inch of tire width, as determined by the manufacturer's rated tire width on the tire sidewall. The steering axle, however, must go by the load limit by the tire manufacturer

MAX: for a single axle = 40,000 lbs
MAX: for 4 tires = 42,000 lbs

This does not take into consideration engine weight.

Josh
when a driver rolls up to the consignee and gets loaded he can load up to a max of 48000 lbs. It does have to be loaded correctly to be road legal and not get you in trouble at a weigh station when you are inspected at a state border. But it is no great sweat.
You can go heavier if you have more axles. Go to canada and see some of the trucks they run up there. more axles than truck. They run very heavy up there.
My numbers come from over 12 years of transportaion experience, as in I have driven trucks for most of my adult working life. i have only recently gotten into a technical position as a Security Analyst after somehow fitting in college in a life already full with work and family.
Instead of log books and Being DOT legal (of which being legal concerning weight was a huge factor of my day, never make the DOT inspector upset Josh, by the time he is done fining you it can almost draw blood) I now deal with satelite tracking and Federal Law enforcement.
you can load up to 48000lbs without having to get a permit.
you take into account your vehicle weight itself and how it all fits together. the tandems(rear axles) can slide forward and back to help you distribute the weight.
You can also reduce your total amount of fuel and run with just enough to reach another fueling location and so "cheat" the rules.

The following I pulled from a link that deals largely with what Rumsfeld has to say about these munitions--but a subordinate had an interesting thought on it:
The Russians took 'em?

I am lost on some of these calculations fellow posters have included. The thing is, they were there. They were reported to be there--it wasn't a mirage.

Then the explosives were gone. Whose fault is it? Well, if you don't want to blame the Commander-in-Chief (Respondeat superior) then you have to go down the line to either Donald Rumsfeld or General Tommy Franks (once again, respondeat superior, i.e., the guy in charge is responsible).

I figure the Iraqis took some of them, and that it is quite possible that they were shipped to Syria as well. At any rate, from what I read here from those who support the Bush administration, they figure the explosives were either

• Low on the military's priority list to secure and make sure they weren't going anywhere, or
• Not around when the troops got there

So which is it?

And while I believe that while yes indeed, there are more pressing issues on our plates in this national election, these are questions that should be answered, whether the answers turn out to be embarrassing or not for the current adminstration.

More updates on this story from what I posted earlier. First Reuters has picked this story up and they have added new information - Yahoo! News link.

The key piece of this report is that ABC has now confirmed that the material inside those barrels was in fact HMX. If you'll recall the previous story stated that they were checking it out, it has now been checked out - debunk away.

Secondly, in case you missed the previous post, it has also been confirmed that the facility they entered was sealed with an IAEA seal. As stated in that post/article IAEA seals are only handed out when:

HMX would certainly qualify there.

If anyone is interested here is a link to the actual IAEA report (pdf) which details the exact amounts of each explosive. It states explicitly that the HMX is the one under IAEA seal, I'm not sure if that applies to the RDX and PETN.

Finally, David Kay was just on CNN and he was asked by Aaron Brown to review ABC's video from April 18th, 2003. He confirmed that the seal was in fact an IAEA seal and that the explosives only would have been sealed because of their potency. He also said that other parts of the video show that these explosives were clearly the ones in question. He was asked if this was "Game, Set, Match" and he said absolutely "Game, Set, Match". He also said that these were "absolutely not" classified as WMD.

Obviously I'll post the transcript when CNN puts it up, this is just from my memory with the help of a few blogs covering this. I'd say that without a doubt this is more than a credible word establishing:
1) The explosives were present after the fall of Baghdad when the area was in US control.
2) The explosives were stolen on the US watch.

Someone (sorry can't remember who) asked for proof the Bush administration was denying these explosives were present after the fall of Baghdad, this is the best I have for now - from the Yahoo! News story:

Have they put it succinctly into words? Not that I am aware of, the implication and the way they are treating Kerry's accusations certainly speaks for them though. The Pentagon has also been arguing that the explosives were moved before the invasion as well.

Edited to add: As if another nail in the coffin was needed, check out these Satellite images from GlobalSecurity.org. The images clearly show which bunkers contained HMX (and there were several) and it also debunks the idea that trucks photographed by the pentagon carried them away on March 17, 2003 - they were parked at the wrong bunker.

Some people in this thread have said that the video doesn't show all the explosives and you are right it doesn't. But they only video taped one bunker in this area and there are many which contained the explosives which is something I didn't know previously.

Edited to add again: The transcript for Aaron Brown's show is now up - here.


There you go

edited to add final: Knight-Ridder has also weighed in with a zinger of a story:


That last part, directly Bush's fault for failure to plan and failure to send adequate troops for the job at hand. I can't quote the whole thing, but there is some good information in there.

No quite yet CJ, new information:

That would be checkmate. Actual video of trucks removing the weapons to the Syrian border. I guess Cheney was right, the may have been gone before the troops got there. But take a look at the pictures that were taken March 17, 2003.

Actually Yehoshua, I already covered that in my post, please re-read it. If you look at the global security.org link, you'll see the sattellite photos in question. There were trucks there on March 17th alright, too bad they were at the wrong building!

Furthemore, there is no way you can possibly refute the mountain of evidence by now trying to say that the weapons were gone. If that is your assertion, please feel free to refute every single thing I just wrote in my previous post, specifically what David Kay said. Also, please kindly refute the videos that were filmed clearly showing the weapons that were there on April 18th - is it your assertion that these were filmed in some Hollywood basement or something?

The article you cited is old news, and furthermore the single low res image it provides isn't even accurate. The real story is of course much more complex as shown in the Global Security link.

I'm not sure how you play chess, but that is hardly checkmate.

You have trucks at the sight before the troops were there. Wrong Building? Who said that? Note the location of the north Arrow on both pictures. What you see is the fact that the green box your picture claims is the DoD is wrong. The DoD picture is the buildings above that one. And denote the yellow arrow truck in front of a building with HMX.

The April 18th video shows RDX and HMX, true, but i do not see 400 tons of RDX.

Very well, your move.

Not trying to really interject but Satellite Photos from the pentagon?

Just like the pre war satellite photos we tried to use as a case for war? The Bunkers the mobile labs etc etc? I would hardly call those credible and we have visual and documented proof that they were after the invasion. The Pentagon is backing away from this very very quickly. David Kay has pretty much clarified the validity of this story.

Actually, I'm questioning the claim that 380 tons couldn't be moved by individuals in individual vehicles, when given an entire year to do so. Recently (2 days ago) I watched a Danish documentary called 'Battalionen'. This programme is on every week and it follows the Danish troops in Iraq and shows us back home what they've been experiencing.

Its a real eye opener.
On Wednesday they showed the immediate aftermath of a Danish patrol that was hit by a IED (roadside bomb). The Danish soldiers had taken up a position behind a sand bank and were tending their wounded (Thankfully no one was killed or hurt badly)

On the road, was a steady stream of Iraqi vehicles. And the road was packed with every kind of vehicle you can imagine. Everything from large articulated trucks to donkey carts. My point is, it is impossible to control what is being carried in the thousands and thousands of vehicles travelling about Iraq's roads


As for your point about the explosives being guarded, according to this article, not only did the explosives seem to have been in place after the invasion happened, but they were apparently left unguarded!

I can't help but inject that if destroying these types of facilities is deemed important, then by default the invasion itself is indeed justified, as that was the only way to do so.



CJ, the statements the administration made need to be viewed in context. They were responding to the direct insinuations of the Kerry camp, and were relaying information they had at the time indicating that those weapons might not have even been there at the time--which was the position from several sources. To jump from that to calling them liars is simply not supported by the facts. Especially if you don't also then add that Kerry is also lying by making definitive statements regarding a situation which has no definitive facts at this point. As you yourself state, no one really knows what happened, what weapons were there, or when they were removed, or who was responsible for guarding them. Kerry knows all these things, and yet is making the blind accusation anyway, and doing so as if all these issues were clearly defined. That is a much bigger lie than Bush's statement--there simply can't be any argument about that.



Question: How sure can we be that it was preventable when we don't even know what happened, when it happened, why it happened, or even who it happened to?



This is a good point....however, it would shift depending on exactly when the munitions were missing (which might in fact be several different periods).



CJ, I understand these feeling, and they do help clarify your position. However, again, they are based on several assumptions, any one of which might not be true. The one true thing I think you can say about Bush's handling of the invasion was that he let the military handle it--refusing to allow political issues interfere (the lesson from Vietnam). You can criticize this decision if you want, but I don't think you can argue that that isn't how it was handled (and is, in fact, one of the reasons the generals so strongly support Bush). Given that, it would have been up to the military to determine how to handle situations like this--the fact that they did indeed do so is proven by examing which sites were secured, and which ones weren't. Obviously, securing weapons depots would have been deemed militarily important. So, unless you're willing to say our military was incompetent, it would then stand to reason that there is indeed a good explanation for what likely happened here.

Hobbes, please don't try and twist my words into a justification for invading Iraq in the first place. Even if this facility were paraded around as the reason we invaded, I still wouldn't have supported it. But, if you are going to do something, you had better do it the right way.


Actually it is supported by facts if you'll take a look at that fairly lengthy post I wrote - here. David Kay put the nail in the coffin on the issue of whether or not the explosives found by the ABC team were in fact HMX and we already know that they found those explosives on April 18th. That is the risk you run by immediately trying to refute what your opponent is saying. Kerry was right form the beginning (even if he was gambling on it with limited info) and by taking the opposite position that makes the administration liars.


Because we already have the answers to those questions Hobbes. There was a team there on April 18th and they discovered the bunker(s). Rather than having them destroyed or securing them, they opted to just leave them there unlocked. The explosives subsequently went missing. How was that not preventable?

Furthermore, if you buy into the Knight-Ridder story I linked (also in that post) you'll see that Iraqis were warning the US that looting was going on but we didn't have enough troops to deal with it. That again gets back to placing blame on the planners of the invasion.

So, take a little time to go back and read that post, this is pretty much case closed unless some dramatic new information comes to light in my opinion.

Stating that," It's possible that the explosives had been removed from the site before the U.S. forces arrived there" is a lie? Give me a break, CJ!

I am at a loss to explain (or understand) why or how these soldiers abandoned almost 400 tons of explosives, but I think the jury is still out on the actual amount. Was it 3 tons or 400? Generally, I believe the military took the possibility of looting seriously. Here is an example of the enormity of the problem. This article is dated in early May, just about three weeks after the fall of Baghdad.

As I said in a previous post Mrs. P, I haven't seen a specific statement saying the weapons disappeared before March 9th definitively. I have however posted remarks from Dick Cheney and it should be common knowledge that is what the Pentagon's position is.

Furthermore, you have George Bush out on the campaign trail chiding John Kerry about his claims that 380 tons of explosives are missing.

I don't think it takes a genius to read between the lines and see what message the Bush administration is pushing here.

I called it a lie Mrs. P and I'll say it again. I don't have some really complex definition of what a lie is, if you aren't being honest or you are intending to deceive by omission or spin you are lying it is that simple in my book.

If I came home one night with lipstick on my shirt and I told my wife "It is possible I slept with another woman" - how fast do you think I'd be out on my tail in the cold? You think she would see the difference there and give me the benefit of the doubt you seem to be giving Bush? I don't think so.

Your analogy only holds if Bush was privy to some definitive information that 400 tons of explosive were taken. I don't believe he was. He wasn't flying in a Blackhawk helicopter over the facility watching the looting. From what I've seen, which isn't a lot I'll admit because I watch almost no television, he is criticizing Kerry for jumping the gun on this without more information. That's a fair criticism.

The "lipstick" here is the fact that we have video running on ABC and now virtually every other station in the country proving without a doubt that HMX was present on April 18th at Al-Qaqaa, after the fall of Baghdad. You also have David Kay on TV confirming the authenticity of the tape, the findings, the IAEA seal, etc.

Meanwhile Bush and his administration are touring the country saying that it is "possible" the weapons were taken before we arrived and before Baghdad fell.

How is that not a lie again?

Edited for spelling

Ok, Ok. We all saw the tape. There are some disputable points.
1. How much was really there? (we've all heard the IAEA statements and references to only 3T).
2. We've already found how network news will distort the truth (seemingly intentionally) for their political gain. Need we say "Dan Rather"? In other words... when was this film taken, where, etc?
3. If the admin is saying the weapons were taken prior to American involvement, who's to say that the majority wasn't and there were a small amount of "left overs"? The film doesn't give us any definitive information as to qty, etc.

Your statements would hold some water but even the Iaea came out today saying they warned the adminstration of the contents at the depot before the war.

IAEA: U.S. Warned On Explosives

I thought I would just bring in another instance of Bush's subordinates, doing the lying for him. This is an episode of Larry King Live featuring Mark Racicot and Al Sharpton:

The rhetoric certainly sounds familiar (especially if you read the whole thing) but unfortunately it is a complete distortion of the facts. Again, I'd call that a lie, some people like to use other synonyms.

Edited to add:

1. If you'll go back to my original post which contains the most recent evidence (back on page 7 I think) you'll see a link to GlobalSecurity.org. The link shows sattellite photos that suggest several bunkers contained the HMX and RDX. The video only shows one bunker, are you suggesting that just because only one bunker was filmed only one bunker exists? Doesn't sound like a very logical or strong argument to me, especially considering this was a major weapons facility. Does that mean the majority of this stuff was carried off, the US soldiers found it, left it, and then the rest was looted? I'm not sure that help's Bush's case either.

2. I realize that network news has had a bad year with several of the scandals that have come to light. So you have a fair point. It has been disgraceful to the media, but I don't think that means you throw the baby out with the bath water. However, it would be one thing if this was simply printed words based on interviews and "unnamed" sources. The fact that there are videos, photos and sattellite images I think pretty much makes it authentic. Furthermore, the experts have looked at this and they have confirmed it, I haven't heard one expert denying what was in this video, not one. When Rathergate happened people came out of the woodwork dissecting the memo, if this were fake don't you think it would have been uncovered by now?

3. A few things here. First, I don't think it was simply 3 tons, see answer to Question 1. Secondly, it really gets back to the whole are they lying or not thing. Some people are trying to give Bush leeway here when he is blatantly trying to spin this when there is uncontestable evidence disputing his statements. As I said, I'd call that lying but maybe you wouldn't, I don't know.

I do have an interesting question though - let's say John Kerry was in this position, would you be giving him the benefit of the doubt as President? I certainly wouldn't be. If he is elected I intend to be just as hard on him as I am on Bush, I demand integrity from the highest office in the land.

I think the wheels have completely fallen off of this issue. From what I'm reading, the Pentagon put someone up in a press conference to vouch for the removal of 200 tons of the stuff.

Apparently, the press ate him alive. The tape is devastating and there is no way around it.

The problem for Bush - other than the continued lying - is he needs to explain how the stuff was safe from terrorists before we invaded (it was sealed) and now it's not. That's the bottom line.

Just saw an update from the original video from Cube Jockey source.

Exclusive video of Iraq explosives getting nationwide attention



Army official says he destroyed tons of explosives at Al-Qaqaa site

From this article the last sentence is striking because of the video which is shown from bunkers that the army with the video crew went into had Iaea seals on them before.



Also to aevans176 one question



On many different newstories last nite I heard them repeat it many times that there is an encrypted date stamp that can't be changed, as well as no one from the pentagon or the military personnel that were with this news crew has come out against the authenticity of the video.

Is this an example of incompetence in prosecuting the Iraqi invasion - or is there a good reason for these explosives to have been left unguarded?
There is another new angle to this story that has come to light this morning as well. This one is particularly disturbing because it suggests a pattern. The Oregonian has the story:

As much as people want to believe Kerry's statements are just spin, stories like this drive the point home with how ill prepared we were for Iraq. I think that any rational person has to ask - why wasn't this facility bombed or guarded? If you are going to invade, why not do it right?

The story is still developing and not nearly as solid as the Al-Qaqaa story, but I'd say extremely plausible given how well the insurgency is armed right now. It appears we did get an October surprise afterall.

Of course the press ate him alive. The press was chomping at the bit to attack the Major who came forward only to say that it was one of his missions to 'loot' the facilities in Iraq.

He claims he removed 250 tons of materials (17 truck loads) that he deemed dangerous if in the hands of the wrong people. He claims he did not check for seals nor did he see seals. He destroyed all the weapons.

Interesting note was that the records of the destroyed material are still classified.

I consider this move by the pentagon to be 'check.' WHY? Kerry has dropped all reference to the 'missing' explosive from his speeches today.

Hmmm, I wonder why you didn't link the story for everyone to read if it debunked the evidence so much. I'll go ahead and link it myself and show you why - Army destroyed some ammo.

Looks like background noise and misdirection to me Yehoshua. The pentagon says they destroyed some weapons from that facility, but they weren't under an IAEA seal, that would seem to suggest that they didn't destroy the weapons in question.

Furthermore, they even admit that all they destroyed was TNT, plastic explosives and white phosphorus.

When asked directly whether or not RDX was removed, he started the spin game... "I can't say, but I think we pulled it out". In other words he doesn't know and this is a complete non-story.

As DaytonRocker said, the wheels have fallen off this issue.

Edited for grammar - Di Rita is a he not a she

CJ, I'm not even directing this at you, just at the issue in general. The entire issue, to me, speaks to some hypocrisy on the invasion. Either keeping these munitions out of the hands of terrorists is important, or it isn't. If indeed it is important, then the ONLY way to have achieved that was through invasion...ipso facto providing the justification. If indeed it is not that important, then by definition this issue isn't that important. This isn't twisting anyone's words...I am simply trying to lay out the facts of the issue, showing that the concern here should probably be addressed at a much higher level before delving down into specific actions. You think we should question what happened here, and I will grant you that. However, the flip side is that if this issue is indeed important, those against the war should consider the very ramifications they are talking about for these munitions, and how they would ALL be somewhere the wrong people could access them if we hadn't invaded. To me, the issue being discussed needs to be put into the broader context before anyone takes a stand on specific actions. In short, the argument against the actions here may be very valid, but those same arguments verify the strategy chosen.



Yes, it is a very rational question to ask. The second rational thing to do is to wait for the answers...that hasn't been the case, and that is what we are trying to point out.



Yes, I would....I believe I have shown that in various issues that have come up in other threads...I simply do not believe in tarring and feathering people without knowing more completely what the real story is....nor do I believe in supporting people for wrong actions merely because they happen to agree with me on other political issues, as I believe I have also demonstrated.



It is not a lie because you have no information or facts on intent. To lie there must be intent. Bush is probably aware of the information you present here, that by no means indicates he has had time to watch it, much less analyze it, vs. all the other sources of information he has access to, to determine what is really happening.

Kerry, on the other, went off on the warpath with partial information. Wait a second, isn't that basically the argument many have with Bush? Wasn't that a 'lie' when Bush did it? Exactly when did the groundrules change so that one gets the pass, when the other does not...or does it depend merely on ones idealogy before hand?

I actually heard Major Pearson, so I don't need some new hac telling me what I heard. I didn't post anything because there are no transcripts of his speech out.

Let me get this straight. Major Pearson and his crew take 17 trucks to Al Qaqaa, load up 250 tons of material that they deem dangerous in the hands of their enemies (standard military procedure) at a site declared by the UN as having a total of 377 tons of material, and destroy it. And now you are trying to sell me that the 250 taken from a site with 377 has not the 'sealed' UN set? So the UN did not seal everything at the site? Or is there actually 627 tons of materials on the site?

Lets talk about the seal. Major Pearson claims that he did not look for the seal. Could the seal have been there even though he didn't look for it? Or may it is the old, if a tree fell in the forest, would it make a noise? Just because he did not look for the seal does not mean it was not there. Here is this Major in the middle of Iraq with one job, salvage or destroy all potential enemy weapons and explosives. He doesn't have to look for some UN seal to know it was 'secured' by the UN in order to salvage or destroy it. And by secured, the UN means it put a padlock on it and told Saddam not to go in there. A child and the cookie jar.

Good Spin. Your own sited quote claims that RDX is PLASTIC EXPLOSIVESHere is why i don't need the reporter hack telling me what Di Rita said. Di Rita went on to say that the information is classified at the moment, and he is trying to de-classify the information. Some classified report out there that says RDX, HMX, whatever each item that was destroyed. Or it will say plastic explosives, which is the something. It may even claim to have a seal that the Maj. did not see. There are also photos that are currently being de-classified that show the Major at the site with his 17 trucks.

You are still in 'check.' Kerry has yet to speak about the missing explosives today and excuse the administration of gross incompetence. Why? Does he believe the pentagon? Could the Majors story be true? Could he have lead a charge into a brick wall?

Edited to add:

It also seems to me that the issue of "a seal" is a "red herring". It would be simple for anyone with any mechanical experience to enter that bunker and upon leaving replace the chain to make it look as though the "seal" had not been removed.

How?

Simple. Cut the chain, open the door. When done replace the cut chain link. If the link is a welded link? Weld it.

This is how they secure ordinance?

ANOTHER EDIT TO ADD

My apologies, I did not realize I double posted.

Keeping these stockpiles of munitions out of the hands of terrorists is what was going on before the war. Saddam Hussein was not taking his WMDs and funneling them to terrorists. These things were sealed by weapons inspectors. The war changed that apparently.

A good reason against the invasion is that it gave an opportunity for the various dangerous weapons to be hidden away into pockets of the country under the control of people who could either use them to attack US troops or funnel them to terrorist organizations.

In invading Iraq for the purposes of defeating terrorism, one would hope that the administration was also embarking on an urgent hunt for Hussein's weapons to prove that the WMDs were actually there and to keep them from falling into the wrong hands and the black market. In not planning for securing the dangerous weapons like conventional explosives and the supposed WMDs the bush administration seems to have substantively dropped the ball.

While I am not 100% convinced that there were 400 tons of explosives that disappeared when reading the various stories alluded to in this thread, I do feel fairly convinced that this site was not secured as soon as possible and carefully watched over as it seems it should have been.

Instead it fell between the cracks and was left exposed to the possibility of looting.

So I think yes Bush dropped the ball in planning to secure these dangerous weapons. It mystifies me as to why securing and accounting for these types of sites which had been previously identified was not a primary goal of the invasion of Iraq. Weren't we feverishly looking for evidence of WMDs?

The jury is still out in my mind as to whether this lethal cache of weapons fell into the hands of terrorists or slipped through the control of accountants on its way to being destroyed. Either answer is not very satisfying to me.

Here's what I don't get...

In the early 90's, Saddam had WMD and used them against Iran while Iran was using theirs against Iraq.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait and we came within one day of taking over Bagdad, Saddam never used WMD. He most certainly had them.

During the 90's weapons inspectors came in and dismantled the WMD program we basically funded. During that time, Saddam secured the WMD and all his weaponry so nobody else could get to them. There has not been a shred of evidence that Iraq ever, EVER transferred WMD or any kind of significant weaponry to anyone - let alone terrorists - when he definitely had them.

Now we find out that Saddam did a decent job of securing all this stuff, and why wouldn't he