380 tons stolen *BEFORE* troops arrived

[CaptnKirk]

NBC is sticking to thier story and the Whitehouse tries to spin and find traction.

Associated press was there at the time - Army not order to search in depth

The RUSH was more important, I call it 'Piss Poor Planning' by Bush's Cabinet.
I do not blame the Soldiers for any of this, clearly Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz screwed the pooch.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: replicator
U.S. troops didn't search weapons site: reporter
101st Airborne's stay at Al-Qaqaa was 24-hour 'pit stop' on way to Baghdad, embedded journalist remembers

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/...AX&tacodalogin=yes

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

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

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

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

Yep. As I posted in the other threads:

Did anyone happen to catch the NBC follow-up story tonight? They took the Bush attack machine to task for misrepresenting their story. They explicitly did NOT say the explosives were not there. They only said they did not see them. Of course, they also weren't looking for them, and there are over 1,000 buildings at the site.

In short, the Bush campaign pulled bits and pieces out of context, twisted them to mean something else, and loudly trumpted them as fact to divert attention from the real truth. I know the Bush apologists will give them a pass, of course, since this is the first time the Bush campaign has ever done anything like this ... well, at least since earlier that same day.

A couple of other unpleasant facts from tonight's NBC story. While the IAEA did their last full inspection in January, they did another spot check in March, only four days before the invasion. At that time, the one type of explosive was still safely under seal. They did not check the other type (sorry, can't remember which was which). While U.S. troops dropped by twice in April, they were not searching the site on either stop. It wasn't until May, about two months later that the Weapons Inspectors got there and discovered the IAEA explosives missing.

While it is certainly possible they disappeared in the four days between the last IAEA check and the invasion, only the most mindless partisan hack would try to assert that as fact. More than likely, they disappeared in the two months we negligently left the facility unprotected.

I'd say it's time for some of you to go back to attacking NBC and the other commie-lib media. :roll:

 

[BBond]

The right wing echo chamber sure is quiet all of a sudden.

Time to change the title of this thread. I suggest:

"380 tons of high density explosives stolen due to sheer incompetence of Bush administration"
"U.S. voters oust Bush"



Security moms, please take note.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: replicator
U.S. troops didn't search weapons site: reporter
101st Airborne's stay at Al-Qaqaa was 24-hour 'pit stop' on way to Baghdad, embedded journalist remembers

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/...AX&tacodalogin=yes

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

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

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

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

Yep. As I posted in the other threads:

Did anyone happen to catch the NBC follow-up story tonight? They took the Bush attack machine to task for misrepresenting their story. They explicitly did NOT say the explosives were not there. They only said they did not see them. Of course, they also weren't looking for them, and there are over 1,000 buildings at the site.

In short, the Bush campaign pulled bits and pieces out of context, twisted them to mean something else, and loudly trumpted them as fact to divert attention from the real truth. I know the Bush apologists will give them a pass, of course, since this is the first time the Bush campaign has ever done anything like this ... well, at least since earlier that same day.

A couple of other unpleasant facts from tonight's NBC story. While the IAEA did their last full inspection in January, they did another spot check in March, only four days before the invasion. At that time, the one type of explosive was still safely under seal. They did not check the other type (sorry, can't remember which was which). While U.S. troops dropped by twice in April, they were not searching the site on either stop. It wasn't until May, about two months later that the Weapons Inspectors got there and discovered the IAEA explosives missing.

While it is certainly possible they disappeared in the four days between the last IAEA check and the invasion, only the most mindless partisan hack would try to assert that as fact. More than likely, they disappeared in the two months we negligently left the facility unprotected.

I'd say it's time for some of you to go back to attacking NBC and the other commie-lib media. :roll:

Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: charrison


Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

Tell that to the people being blown up by that .02% of the explosives in Iraq.

I'd also like to see the data you used to come up with that .02% figure.

What did you include, the U.S. explosives detonated in Iraq???

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: charrison


Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

Tell that to the people being blown up by that .02% of the explosives in Iraq.

I'd also like to see the data you used to come up with that .02% figure.

What did you include, the U.S. explosives detonated in Iraq???

There is an estimated 400,000 tons of ordinance in Iraq. Over 100,000 tons has already been destroyed.

300/400000 results in a very small number(.00075). It is appears my first number was a gross overstatement

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

I know it is reprehensible to claim that this is a huge failure to lose .00075% of the explosives in Iraq. It appears most of the EIDS have been made ordinance. This story is a nonstory.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond
The right wing echo chamber sure is quiet all of a sudden.

Time to change the title of this thread. I suggest:

"380 tons of high density explosives stolen due to sheer incompetence of Bush administration"
"U.S. voters oust Bush"



Security moms, please take note.

Before you get a little too gleeful here, you may want to consider that there's absolutely no proof the weapons weren't already missing before the 3rd Infantry (which got there first, before the 101st Airborne) arrived.

I do, however, understand that making premature, highly speculative pronouncements based on emotion instead of the facts are a liberal tradition so, carry on.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

High density explosives that are capable of detonating nuclear devices.

These explosives are not to be confused with common ordinance.

Explosives - Nitramines

 

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

High density explosives that are capable of detonating nuclear devices.

These explosives are not to be confused with common ordinance.

Explosives - Nitramines

The kind used for WMD huh?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

High density explosives that are capable of detonating nuclear devices.

These explosives are not to be confused with common ordinance.

Explosives - Nitramines

Yeah, tell me again why the UN let them keep those?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
The right wing echo chamber sure is quiet all of a sudden.

Time to change the title of this thread. I suggest:

"380 tons of high density explosives stolen due to sheer incompetence of Bush administration"
"U.S. voters oust Bush"



Security moms, please take note.

Before you get a little too gleeful here, you may want to consider that there's absolutely no proof the weapons weren't already missing before the 3rd Infantry (which got there first, before the 101st Airborne) arrived.

I do, however, understand that making premature, highly speculative pronouncements based on emotion instead of the facts are a liberal tradition so, carry on.

Yeah TLC. A liberal tradition of making highly speculative pronouncements based on emotion instead of facts like Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice et al made before their now proven baseless invasion of Iraq.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
The right wing echo chamber sure is quiet all of a sudden.

Time to change the title of this thread. I suggest:

"380 tons of high density explosives stolen due to sheer incompetence of Bush administration"
"U.S. voters oust Bush"



Security moms, please take note.

Before you get a little too gleeful here, you may want to consider that there's absolutely no proof the weapons weren't already missing before the 3rd Infantry (which got there first, before the 101st Airborne) arrived.

I do, however, understand that making premature, highly speculative pronouncements based on emotion instead of the facts are a liberal tradition so, carry on.

Yeah TLC. A liberal tradition of making highly speculative pronouncements based on emotion instead of facts like Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice et al made before their now proven baseless invasion of Iraq.

Exactly!

Aren't liberals supposed to be better than that?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

High density explosives that are capable of detonating nuclear devices.

These explosives are not to be confused with common ordinance.

Explosives - Nitramines

Yeah, tell me again why the UN let them keep those?

Yeah, tell me again why the Bush administration left them unguarded after they forced the IAEA, which had the material under control, out of Iraq.

Also explain to me under what UN mandate Iraq was denied permission to keep high explosives.

You people are pathetic. Just another obfuscation in an attempt to mask the fact that the Bush administration was criminally incompetent in their baseless invasion of Iraq.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
The right wing echo chamber sure is quiet all of a sudden.

Time to change the title of this thread. I suggest:

"380 tons of high density explosives stolen due to sheer incompetence of Bush administration"
"U.S. voters oust Bush"



Security moms, please take note.

Before you get a little too gleeful here, you may want to consider that there's absolutely no proof the weapons weren't already missing before the 3rd Infantry (which got there first, before the 101st Airborne) arrived.

I do, however, understand that making premature, highly speculative pronouncements based on emotion instead of the facts are a liberal tradition so, carry on.

Yeah TLC. A liberal tradition of making highly speculative pronouncements based on emotion instead of facts like Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice et al made before their now proven baseless invasion of Iraq.

Exactly!

Aren't liberals supposed to be better than that?

While liberals are being better than that you people spread your lies. Time to set the record straight and fight fire with fire.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
The right wing echo chamber sure is quiet all of a sudden.

Time to change the title of this thread. I suggest:

"380 tons of high density explosives stolen due to sheer incompetence of Bush administration"
"U.S. voters oust Bush"



Security moms, please take note.

Before you get a little too gleeful here, you may want to consider that there's absolutely no proof the weapons weren't already missing before the 3rd Infantry (which got there first, before the 101st Airborne) arrived.

I do, however, understand that making premature, highly speculative pronouncements based on emotion instead of the facts are a liberal tradition so, carry on.

Yeah TLC. A liberal tradition of making highly speculative pronouncements based on emotion instead of facts like Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice et al made before their now proven baseless invasion of Iraq.

Don't forget the draft. Bush may bring back the draft

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

I know it is reprehensible to claim that this is a huge failure to lose .00075% of the explosives in Iraq. It appears most of the EIDS have been made ordinance. This story is a nonstory.

It occurs to me that the terrorists, even Al-Qaeda, are in Iraq now, yes? Has it occured to the people who are dismissing the 380 tons of stolen high explosives as a non-issue what they could do with that? Considering what far less was able to do in Oklahoma City, you will forgive me if I disagree that this is not a problem. With our poor port inspection record and the gaping holes in the security of both coasts and both borders, Bush's attempt at keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists, or so he claimed, may have in fact given them an explosives jackpot. As much as I dislike fearmongering, I think it is worth considering how Bush's foreign policy has once again made us "safer."

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: jtusa4

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

High density explosives that are capable of detonating nuclear devices.

These explosives are not to be confused with common ordinance.

Explosives - Nitramines

The kind used for WMD huh?

You are obviously as confused over what is and isn't WMD as the Bush administration.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

I know it is reprehensible to claim that this is a huge failure to lose .00075% of the explosives in Iraq. It appears most of the EIDS have been made ordinance. This story is a nonstory.

It occurs to me that the terrorists, even Al-Qaeda, are in Iraq now, yes? Has it occured to the people who are dismissing the 380 tons of stolen high explosives as a non-issue what they could do with that? Considering what far less was able to do in Oklahoma City, you will forgive me if I disagree that this is not a problem. With our poor port inspection record and the gaping holes in the security of both coasts and both borders, Bush's attempt at keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists, or so he claimed, may have in fact given them an explosives jackpot. As much as I dislike fearmongering, I think it is worth considering how Bush's foreign policy has once again made us "safer."

There are alot of things that could be done, without or without these explosives. Does it matter if a something gets blown up with 1lb of this stuff or 10 lbs of C4?

 

[Abraxas]

Only that with smaller amounts of explosives needed for the same job would be easier to smuggle and transport and that you can create more weapons with the same amount of materials.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
The right wing echo chamber sure is quiet all of a sudden.

Time to change the title of this thread. I suggest:

"380 tons of high density explosives stolen due to sheer incompetence of Bush administration"
"U.S. voters oust Bush"



Security moms, please take note.

Before you get a little too gleeful here, you may want to consider that there's absolutely no proof the weapons weren't already missing before the 3rd Infantry (which got there first, before the 101st Airborne) arrived.

I do, however, understand that making premature, highly speculative pronouncements based on emotion instead of the facts are a liberal tradition so, carry on.

Yeah TLC. A liberal tradition of making highly speculative pronouncements based on emotion instead of facts like Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice et al made before their now proven baseless invasion of Iraq.

Not to mention their highly speculative pronouncement that these explosives were already gone when we got there, a claim they offered based on the their own twisted misrepresentation of the NBC story.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

I know it is reprehensible to claim that this is a huge failure to lose .00075% of the explosives in Iraq. It appears most of the EIDS have been made ordinance. This story is a nonstory.

It occurs to me that the terrorists, even Al-Qaeda, are in Iraq now, yes? Has it occured to the people who are dismissing the 380 tons of stolen high explosives as a non-issue what they could do with that? Considering what far less was able to do in Oklahoma City, you will forgive me if I disagree that this is not a problem. With our poor port inspection record and the gaping holes in the security of both coasts and both borders, Bush's attempt at keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists, or so he claimed, may have in fact given them an explosives jackpot. As much as I dislike fearmongering, I think it is worth considering how Bush's foreign policy has once again made us "safer."

Agreed, Abraxas. Can any of these Bush apologists imagine what an ocean container, which can hold up to 80,000 pounds of cargo, could do if loaded with high density explosives???

Much more damage than fertilizer and diesel fuel. How can they defend the incompetence of the Bush administration in allowing this threat to arise? Especially in light of the fact that they were FULLY AWARE of the existence of these explosives and still they refused to secure them.

I can't believe there is a single American who would cast a vote for Bush after such a display of criminal negligence.

 

[NeoV]

Clearly there seem to be many sides to this story. At the very least, a few issues need to be raised. Of all the 'ordinances' estimated to be in Iraq, how many of them are high grade stuff like this? Yes, these missing tons may only be a small percentage of the total explosive material in Iraq, but I'm guessing they are a large percentage of the high-end stuff.

Tasteslikechicken - can you at least admit it appears that we didn't secure a gigantic, known, site full of dangerous material? Given the lack of resistance on the road to and in B-Dad, would a few thousand troops left at this site have been a bad thing?

How can anyone say that the inspectors weren't doing their job? They had this stuff sealed up and clearly recognized - I will ask why it wasn't already destroyed - but at least we knew it was there - while the inspectors were running around prior to us invading, why didn't we have them destroy this cache?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Abraxas
Only that with smaller amounts of explosives needed for the same job would be easier to smuggle and transport and that you can create more weapons with the same amount of materials.

There is no need to smuggle explosives into this country.