Minnesota news station has footage of missing 380 tons explotives existed in Iraq after US invaded...

[adlep]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: NeoV
CWJerome's take on this incident? "BBond says, "The explosives were there on April 10 when the first American troops went through al Qaqaa. They disappeared sometime after that."

How do you KNOW this? Explain. Prove they were there. Idoicy.

March 2003: The U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq.
April 2003: 101st stays at Al-Qaqaa, notices NO sealed explosives
After the invasion: The Pentagon said Monday that ''coalition forces were present in the vicinity at various times during and after major combat operations. The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility, but found no indicators of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). While some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals.

So the material went missing some time before the invasion and prior to the US assuming control. Meaning:
· It might have been sold or used by Saddam's government prior to the invasion
· It might have been looted prior to the invasion
· It might have been looted prior to the US taking control

It was not stolen on the US's watch. More information will come out, the truth will come out, and the political ploy will to hurt Bush will fail, and -like I said- you will look dumb. There is so much documented info on this within the military... I'll accept their explanations of what they were doing in that area over that of what John Kerry says every time. There is no story here, just pure speculation by Bush haters. Laughable."

Care to make us look 'dumb' about this issue any further CWJ?

Any more Kinko's jokes Tasteslikefootinmouth?

I love content-free, pompous replies like yours, NeoV. It reinforces my reasoning for despising the new liberals. :lips:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um, Chicken - do you realized that you just attacked someone who took your side of the argument ?

Probably not, it's a comprehension thing.

Is that so? A guy that calls me Tasteslikefootinmouth is taking my "side"? Methinks I'm not the one having the comprehension issue, Cap'n. I will say that his quoting style is damn confusing. Maybe that's the problem?

Eh.. Chiken...Pssst...YOu forgot to address the VIDEO....

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: NeoV
CWJerome's take on this incident? "BBond says, "The explosives were there on April 10 when the first American troops went through al Qaqaa. They disappeared sometime after that."

How do you KNOW this? Explain. Prove they were there. Idoicy.

March 2003: The U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq.
April 2003: 101st stays at Al-Qaqaa, notices NO sealed explosives
After the invasion: The Pentagon said Monday that ''coalition forces were present in the vicinity at various times during and after major combat operations. The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility, but found no indicators of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). While some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals.

So the material went missing some time before the invasion and prior to the US assuming control. Meaning:
· It might have been sold or used by Saddam's government prior to the invasion
· It might have been looted prior to the invasion
· It might have been looted prior to the US taking control

It was not stolen on the US's watch. More information will come out, the truth will come out, and the political ploy will to hurt Bush will fail, and -like I said- you will look dumb. There is so much documented info on this within the military... I'll accept their explanations of what they were doing in that area over that of what John Kerry says every time. There is no story here, just pure speculation by Bush haters. Laughable."

Care to make us look 'dumb' about this issue any further CWJ?

Any more Kinko's jokes Tasteslikefootinmouth?

I love content-free, pompous replies like yours, NeoV. It reinforces my reasoning for despising the new liberals. :lips:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um, Chicken - do you realized that you just attacked someone who took your side of the argument ?

Probably not, it's a comprehension thing.

Is that so? A guy that calls me Tasteslikefootinmouth is taking my "side"? Methinks I'm not the one having the comprehension issue, Cap'n. I will say that his quoting style is damn confusing. Maybe that's the problem?

Eh.. Chiken...Pssst...YOu forgot to address the VIDEO....

As have others who seem more concerned about me than the topic.

The video shows there were still explosives at al Qaqaa. Are these explosives gone now or still there? Are all the explosives missing or just part of them? Was there 377 tons or 3 tons? If it's only 3 tons, was the other 374 tons removed previously by Saddam? Has anyone proven the insurgents actually have this material and are using it, or is it pure speculation at this point?

There are plenty of questions to be asked that haven't been answered. Not to mention the fact that even IF 377 tons of this material is missing it comprises, at most, .06% of the ordnance estimated to be in Iraq. It also overlooks the fact that this type of ordnance is not even a major concern as far as the ordnance and muntitions typically used by the insurgency. But if you think this red herring is valid to grab by the tail and bash Bush with, go right ahead. Then you can crow some more about neocons being "owned". :roll:

 

[adlep]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: NeoV
CWJerome's take on this incident? "BBond says, "The explosives were there on April 10 when the first American troops went through al Qaqaa. They disappeared sometime after that."

How do you KNOW this? Explain. Prove they were there. Idoicy.

March 2003: The U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq.
April 2003: 101st stays at Al-Qaqaa, notices NO sealed explosives
After the invasion: The Pentagon said Monday that ''coalition forces were present in the vicinity at various times during and after major combat operations. The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility, but found no indicators of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). While some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals.

So the material went missing some time before the invasion and prior to the US assuming control. Meaning:
· It might have been sold or used by Saddam's government prior to the invasion
· It might have been looted prior to the invasion
· It might have been looted prior to the US taking control

It was not stolen on the US's watch. More information will come out, the truth will come out, and the political ploy will to hurt Bush will fail, and -like I said- you will look dumb. There is so much documented info on this within the military... I'll accept their explanations of what they were doing in that area over that of what John Kerry says every time. There is no story here, just pure speculation by Bush haters. Laughable."

Care to make us look 'dumb' about this issue any further CWJ?

Any more Kinko's jokes Tasteslikefootinmouth?

I love content-free, pompous replies like yours, NeoV. It reinforces my reasoning for despising the new liberals. :lips:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um, Chicken - do you realized that you just attacked someone who took your side of the argument ?

Probably not, it's a comprehension thing.

Is that so? A guy that calls me Tasteslikefootinmouth is taking my "side"? Methinks I'm not the one having the comprehension issue, Cap'n. I will say that his quoting style is damn confusing. Maybe that's the problem?

Eh.. Chiken...Pssst...YOu forgot to address the VIDEO....

As have others who seem more concerned about me than the topic.

The video shows there were still explosives at al Qaqaa. Are these explosives gone now or still there? Are all the explosives missing or just part of them? Was there 377 tons or 3 tons? If it's only 3 tons, was the other 374 tons removed previously by Saddam? Has anyone proven the insurgents actually have this material and are using it, or is it pure speculation at this point?

There are plenty of questions to be asked that haven't been answered. Not to mention the fact that even IF 377 tons of this material is missing it comprises, at most, .06% of the ordnance estimated to be in Iraq. It also overlooks the fact that this type of ordnance is not even a major concern as far as the ordnance and muntitions typically used by the insurgency. But if you think this red herring is valid to grab by the tail and bash Bush with, go right ahead. Then you can crow some more about neocons being "owned". :roll:

This is waht I was trying to address earlier because I knew your "questions" are comming. Even if only 500 pounds of the explosives went missing, it is not excusable. The administration should make every effort possible to secure the explosives and the nuclear sites. They have created MORE chaos instead...
Also, Saddam did not removed the explosives, since and let me repeat that again:
Our grunts removed the IAEA seals, according to the US Weapons Inspector David Kay, the Iraqis would not bother putting the seal on anything so the seals were put on the bunkers BY THE IAEA.

Should we have had enough troops on the ground at the time of the invasion, all of the ordinance could be secured and disposed accordingly.
We created a chaos by our actions and pure incompenetce of your idols.....
Go ahead ask some more questions, so we can exactly show you the other, multiple cases of the Chimp's administration ownage

If it's only 3 tons

:Q
You can make 300 powerful bombs with these explosives....

 

[Pliablemoose]

Soldier to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al Qaqaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons... Developing...

Drudge

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: adlep
This is waht I was trying to address earlier because I knew your "questions" are comming. Even if only 500 pounds of the explosives went missing, it is not excusable. The administration should make every effort possible to secure the explosives and the nuclear sites. They have created MORE chaos instead...
Also, Saddam did not removed the explosives, since and let me repeat that again:
Our grunts removed the IAEA seals, according to the US Weapons Inspector David Kay, the Iraqis would not bother putting the seal on anything so the seals were put on the bunkers BY THE IAEA.

Making "every effort possible" is still no guarantee that these explosive would stay out of the hands of the insurgents, if that's even where they are, a question that nobody is capable of answering at this point.

Should we have had enough troops on the ground at the time of the invasion, all of the ordinance could be secured and disposed accordingly.

Sure, let's spend 300 billion or 400 billion instead of the 200 billion that people are already bitching about. There is a plan in place to secure munitions and ordnance and destroy it. But there are hundreds of thousands of tons of this stuff and 1000s of sites to be secured. There is not and could not be enough manpower to secure all this immediately, not to mention that we still don't know the location of every military bunker in Iraq at this point. We have to accept the fact that things like this will happen. There's no way around it and insisting otherwise is silliness. As much as I'd like to see a complicated plan pulled off flawlessly, I don't believe I've ever experienced anything like that in my 45 years on this earth.

created a chaos by our actions and pure incompenetce of your idols.....
Go ahead ask some more questions, so we can exactly show you the other, multiple cases of the Chimp's administration ownage

If it's only 3 tons

:Q
You can make 300 powerful bombs with these explosives....

Just think how much you can make with 600,000 tons?

Besides that, nobody has demonstrated that this material is being used by the insurgency. Nobody. That's why it's such a red herring. If we want to be concerned about ordnance in the hands of insurgents, old artillery shells are the real problem.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Soldier to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al Qaqaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons... Developing...

Drudge

Another dog and pony show.

These explosives have been gone for 18 months and NOW this guy comes forward? Where's he been the last 4 days?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms spokesman Darrell O'Connor said all C-4 manufactured in the United States contains tracing elements that can identify where it was made and who last possessed it legally

That's from another article, but I think most countries put 'Tracing Agents' in their explosives
to asertain country of origin, not all, but most.

 

[adlep]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Soldier to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al Qaqaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons... Developing...

Drudge

Another dog and pony show.

These explosives have been gone for 18 months and NOW this guy comes forward? Where's he been the last 4 days?

So it was not the Russians who took them?
But, but what about the satellite photo?
What about the Rummy and Chimp stating that the HE were moved BEFORE the war?
So with another version, we have destroyed 200,000+ tons of the explosives. But what about the other 50% remaining?

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Soldier to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al Qaqaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons... Developing...

Drudge

I guess they are in panic mode trying to cover there ass, since there satellite pic didn't do the trick.

Spin right wingers, spin! You are running out of time!

 

[Chadder007]

This is laughable now...and looking Very bad for the Kerry campaign.

1. Russia was removing weapons from the site two days before the war started.
2. There were some weapons that were indeed left by the Russians because the war started to quickly. Nearly 200+ tons
3. The soldiers did indeed remove those weapons and secured them (the 200+ tons that were shown on the ABC news footage)

Dems = OWNED Big Time

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
This is laughable now...and looking Very bad for the Kerry campaign.

1. Russia was removing weapons from the site two days before the war started.
2. There were some weapons that were indeed left by the Russians because the war started to quickly. Nearly 200+ tons
3. The soldiers did indeed remove those weapons and secured them (the 200+ tons that were shown on the ABC news footage)

Dems = OWNED Big Time

Link?

 

[Tom]

Tastelikechicken said-
"
Making "every effort possible" is still no guarantee that these explosive would stay out of the hands of the insurgents, if that's even where they are, a question that nobody is capable of answering at this point.

quote:
Should we have had enough troops on the ground at the time of the invasion, all of the ordinance could be secured and disposed accordingly.


Sure, let's spend 300 billion or 400 billion instead of the 200 billion that people are already bitching about. There is a plan in place to secure munitions and ordnance and destroy it. But there are hundreds of thousands of tons of this stuff and 1000s of sites to be secured. There is not and could not be enough manpower to secure all this immediately, not to mention that we still don't know the location of every military bunker in Iraq at this point. We have to accept the fact that things like this will happen. There's no way around it and insisting otherwise is silliness. As much as I'd like to see a complicated plan pulled off flawlessly, I don't believe I've ever experienced anything like that in my 45 years on this earth.
"
______________________________________________________________________________


You have done a good job of describing the issue and why I think it's important to relieve George W Bush of his current occupation. BEFORE the war, there should have been a plan to destroy or secure all known ammo dumps, and to as quickly as possible discover all unknown ones. There also should have been a plan to capture and hold enemy troops, not let them "melt away". You are right this would have cost a lot more money and required a lot more troops.

BUT THAT IS THE POINT ! When deciding to commit us to this war, the planners needed to be realistic about what it would take, and then decide whether it was worth it or not. We already learned the lessons of doing military things in a half-assed way, several times. But somebody is responsible for taking us down that road again. We aren't saving any money in the long run, and if spending more money could have saved lives, then it is what we should have done.

So in my mind there is no question the war in Iraq has been badly screwed up. The only rational argument for supporting Bush in the face of that is if a person thinks, going forward, his administration will be better able to straighten out the mess than a Kerry administration.

If there is a Bush supporter who agrees with me about the mistakes, so far, but has actual reasons for thinking Bush would be better in fixing things, I'd like to hear their reasoning. Seriously. I can think of some, but rather than me doing it I think it's more appropriate for someone who really believes in it to argue their case.

The main advantages I believe Kerry would have are that..

a. diplomacy- he will be in a better position than Bush to win the support and help of allies that Bush has alienated.
b. in the military- starting from the premise that mistakes have been made, I believe it will be easier for Kerry to change some of the bad decisions already made, than it will be for Bush's people to admit mistakes and change directions. For instance I think it will be easier for Kerry to add active duty troops, than it would be for Rumsfeld/Bush, because first Rumsfeld would have to admit "transformation" can't solve every problem.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
This is laughable now...and looking Very bad for the Kerry campaign.

1. Russia was removing weapons from the site two days before the war started.
2. There were some weapons that were indeed left by the Russians because the war started to quickly. Nearly 200+ tons
3. The soldiers did indeed remove those weapons and secured them (the 200+ tons that were shown on the ABC news footage)

Dems = OWNED Big Time

Is That Your Final Answer Version 1.0 or are we still in development of the Beta version and updating as problems arise?

 

[classy]

Now they are saying we took them, lol. Are they serious? I just read this on Foxnews. Unbelieveable. The administration is all over the place. Each day it looks worse for them.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: classy
Now they are saying we took them, lol. Are they serious? I just read this on Foxnews. Unbelieveable. The administration is all over the place. Each day it looks worse for them.

This story has been all over the place. Every day some vital piece of information has changed. First it was 377 tons. Now it's 3 tons of one and 197 tons of the other. Nothing is making any sense at all.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: classy
Now they are saying we took them, lol. Are they serious? I just read this on Foxnews. Unbelieveable. The administration is all over the place. Each day it looks worse for them.

This story has been all over the place. Every day some vital piece of information has changed. First it was 377 tons. Now it's 3 tons of one and 197 tons of the other. Nothing is making any sense at all.

Actually, it's quite clear.... muddle the facts and the story fades away.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: classy
Now they are saying we took them, lol. Are they serious? I just read this on Foxnews. Unbelieveable. The administration is all over the place. Each day it looks worse for them.

This story has been all over the place. Every day some vital piece of information has changed. First it was 377 tons. Now it's 3 tons of one and 197 tons of the other. Nothing is making any sense at all.

Actually, it's quite clear.... muddle the facts and the story fades away.

Kerry has charged poor leadership and managing of this war. This scenario no matter how you try to spin it, surely plays into the hands of Kerry. First Bush doesn't even address it, then they claim they weren't there because Russia took them, then it is only 3 tons, then after the video shows they were clearly there, now we took them. This last scenario is the wrose one. Why? Because it directly tells you if true, they are not managing this war well. Why is that no one knew? How could the administration not know that we took them and even blame another country?

 

[Tab]

Actually I am extremely confused... Were they gone before we where there? Did we take them? Did we go there and leave them? Did the Russians take them? If the Russians took them where did the put them? How much is actually missing? Is it 197? Is it 3? How much is it?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Actually I am extremely confused... Were they gone before we where there? Did we take them? Did we go there and leave them? Did the Russians take them? If the Russians took them where did the put them? How much is actually missing? Is it 197? Is it 3? How much is it?

Ok, one thing's for sure, they were there AFTER Baghdad fell.

Did we take them? Doubt it, there'd be quartermaster records or something to the like that would prove it to be the case. Since nothing has surfaced, I doubt we took them.

How would the Russians be involved, especially without us KNOWING there were Russians about.

How much is there? I'd say that 380-ton number is pretty close. That stuff has GOT to be heavy. At least several hundred pounds per barrel. That depot was HUGE.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
This is laughable now...and looking Very bad for the Kerry campaign.

1. Russia was removing weapons from the site two days before the war started.
2. There were some weapons that were indeed left by the Russians because the war started to quickly. Nearly 200+ tons
3. The soldiers did indeed remove those weapons and secured them (the 200+ tons that were shown on the ABC news footage)

Dems = OWNED Big Time

Nobody is "OWNED" - this story is far too muddled and confusing for anyone to declare victory. FYI, the stills the Pentagon produced as evidence of the Russians removing explosives from Al Qaqaa were from a different site.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tom
Tastelikechicken said-
"
Making "every effort possible" is still no guarantee that these explosive would stay out of the hands of the insurgents, if that's even where they are, a question that nobody is capable of answering at this point.

quote:
Should we have had enough troops on the ground at the time of the invasion, all of the ordinance could be secured and disposed accordingly.


Sure, let's spend 300 billion or 400 billion instead of the 200 billion that people are already bitching about. There is a plan in place to secure munitions and ordnance and destroy it. But there are hundreds of thousands of tons of this stuff and 1000s of sites to be secured. There is not and could not be enough manpower to secure all this immediately, not to mention that we still don't know the location of every military bunker in Iraq at this point. We have to accept the fact that things like this will happen. There's no way around it and insisting otherwise is silliness. As much as I'd like to see a complicated plan pulled off flawlessly, I don't believe I've ever experienced anything like that in my 45 years on this earth.
"
______________________________________________________________________________


You have done a good job of describing the issue and why I think it's important to relieve George W Bush of his current occupation. BEFORE the war, there should have been a plan to destroy or secure all known ammo dumps, and to as quickly as possible discover all unknown ones. There also should have been a plan to capture and hold enemy troops, not let them "melt away". You are right this would have cost a lot more money and required a lot more troops.

BUT THAT IS THE POINT ! When deciding to commit us to this war, the planners needed to be realistic about what it would take, and then decide whether it was worth it or not. We already learned the lessons of doing military things in a half-assed way, several times. But somebody is responsible for taking us down that road again. We aren't saving any money in the long run, and if spending more money could have saved lives, then it is what we should have done.

Idealistically I agree with you. Realistically, what you are suggesting is and was not possible. Simply securing the munitions sites in Iraq would have required at least an additional 100,000 to 150,000 troops to provide the proper security and support, twice the number currently in Iraq. There are an estimated 2000 such sites. Just commiting 50 troops to each site for security (as an average; some would require more, some less) and the support troops required for the security would easily reach or exceed the numbers I am stating, so you know where my estimate is coming from.

Additonally, those troops would have only provided even more targets for the Iraqs.

I don't think securing all weapons sites and protecting all other sites from looting as well is a feasible plan, which is why I consider the implication that it should have been done a red herring of an argument.

So in my mind there is no question the war in Iraq has been badly screwed up. The only rational argument for supporting Bush in the face of that is if a person thinks, going forward, his administration will be better able to straighten out the mess than a Kerry administration.

If there is a Bush supporter who agrees with me about the mistakes, so far, but has actual reasons for thinking Bush would be better in fixing things, I'd like to hear their reasoning. Seriously. I can think of some, but rather than me doing it I think it's more appropriate for someone who really believes in it to argue their case.

The main advantages I believe Kerry would have are that..

a. diplomacy- he will be in a better position than Bush to win the support and help of allies that Bush has alienated.
b. in the military- starting from the premise that mistakes have been made, I believe it will be easier for Kerry to change some of the bad decisions already made, than it will be for Bush's people to admit mistakes and change directions. For instance I think it will be easier for Kerry to add active duty troops, than it would be for Rumsfeld/Bush, because first Rumsfeld would have to admit "transformation" can't solve every problem.

I don't believe Bush has done a great job. Then again, I don't think a great job would have been possible in Iraq no matter who was in charge. Kerry gives me no confidence whatsoever, with his superficial plans that seem to mirror what Bush is already doing or has already done in Iraq.

Regardless of whether or not you believe Iraq to be a disaster, there is no doubt in my mind that it's progressing forward, even though there is the occasional two-steps back. I would prefer to let Bush finish the job. I think Kerry could screw it up even more.

 

[Tom]

"Idealistically I agree with you. Realistically, what you are suggesting is and was not possible. Simply securing the munitions sites in Iraq would have required at least an additional 100,000 to 150,000 troops to provide the proper security and support, twice the number currently in Iraq."

Remember what the Chief of staff said was required ? The one who "retired" ? I believe his estimate was 300000-400000 troops. And I disagree with you this number was "not possible". It would have been achievable if the operation was done with real cooperation with more of our allies, principally Germany and France, maybe even Russia. Call me old-fashioned but I believe in "overwhelming force" doctrine of Colin Powell.

I just don't think there's any justification for undertaking military action using best case scenario planning. It is one of the worst things any leader can do.

btw, I don't even consider the Iraq war the biggest mistake Bush has made; the deficits, the underfunding and poor management of homeland security issues, and the shift away from core values in the application of justice, are even more serious to me.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tom
Remember what the Chief of staff said was required ? The one who "retired" ? I believe his estimate was 300000-400000 troops. And I disagree with you this number was "not possible". It would have been achievable if the operation was done with real cooperation with more of our allies, principally Germany and France, maybe even Russia. Call me old-fashioned but I believe in "overwhelming force" doctrine of Colin Powell.

I just don't think there's any justification for undertaking military action using best case scenario planning. It is one of the worst things any leader can do.

btw, I don't even consider the Iraq war the biggest mistake Bush has made; the deficits, the underfunding and poor management of homeland security issues, and the shift away from core values in the application of justice, are even more serious to me.

From what I understand, it wasn't a "best-case scenario" that drove the thinking. The idea was to use the least amount of soldiers possible in Iraq so there weren't coalition soldiers on every single street corner making the Iraqis believe this was just another form of oppression. The idea was not to humiliate the Iraqis any more than they already were and more soldiers would definitely have had that efect.

imo, the looting was not done by ordinary Iraqis either. Supposedly Saddam released somewhere around 100,000 criminals from jails in Iraq prior to Baghdad falling. I think this is where the looters originated and it's also something that was not foreseen by anyone.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
This is laughable now...and looking Very bad for the Kerry campaign.

1. Russia was removing weapons from the site two days before the war started.
2. There were some weapons that were indeed left by the Russians because the war started to quickly. Nearly 200+ tons
3. The soldiers did indeed remove those weapons and secured them (the 200+ tons that were shown on the ABC news footage)

Dems = OWNED Big Time

Is Rudy G OWNED then also

How about the WH press secretary and condoleeza

This Administration is full of lies.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
This is laughable now...and looking Very bad for the Kerry campaign.

1. Russia was removing weapons from the site two days before the war started.
2. There were some weapons that were indeed left by the Russians because the war started to quickly. Nearly 200+ tons
3. The soldiers did indeed remove those weapons and secured them (the 200+ tons that were shown on the ABC news footage)

Dems = OWNED Big Time

Is that right?


Click me!

Pentagon Seeks to Account for Explosives

47 minutes ago Top Stories - AP


By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - An Army unit removed 250 tons of ammunition from the Al-Qaqaa weapons depot in April 2003 and later destroyed it, the company's former commander said Friday. A Pentagon (news - web sites) spokesman said some was of the same type as the missing explosives that have become a major issue in the presidential campaign.


But those 250 tons were not located under the seal of the International Atomic Energy Agency ? as the missing high-grade explosives had been ? and Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita could not definitely say whether they were part of the missing 377 tons.


Maj. Austin Pearson, speaking at a press conference at the Pentagon, said his team removed 250 tons of TNT, plastic explosives, detonation cords, and white phosporous rounds on April 13, 2003 ? 10 days after U.S. forces first reached the Al Qaqaa site.


"I did not see any IAEA seals at any of the locations we went into. I was not looking for that," Pearson said.


Di Rita sought to point to Pearson's comments as evidence that some RDX, one of the high-energy explosives, might have been removed from the site. RDX is also known as plastic explosive.


But Di Rita acknowledged: "I can't say RDX that was on the list of IAEA is what the major pulled out. ... We believe that some of the things they were pulling out of there were RDX."


Further study was needed, Di Rita said.


Whether Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s forces removed the explosives before U.S. forces arrived on April 3, 2003, or whether they fell into the hands of looters and insurgents afterward ? because the site was not guarded by U.S. troops ? has become a key issue in the campaign.


Pearson's comments raise further questions about the chain of events surrounding these explosives, the disappearance of which has been repeatedly cited by Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) as evidence of the Bush administration's poor handling of the war in Iraq (news - web sites).


Still, 377 tons of explosives amount to a tiny fraction of the weaponry in Iraq. U.S. forces have already destroyed, or have slated to destroyed, more than 400,000 tons of all manner of Iraqi weapons and ammunition. But at least another 250,000 tons from Saddam's regime remain unaccounted for, and some has undoubtedly fallen into the hands of insurgents.


The window in which the explosives were most likely removed from Al-Qaqaa begins on March 15, 2003 ? five days before the war started ? and ends in late May, when a U.S. weapons inspection team declared the depot stripped and looted.


Two weeks ago, Iraqi officials told the United Nations (news - web sites)' International Atomic Energy Agency that the explosives vanished as a result of "theft and looting ... due to lack of security."


The explosives were known to be housed in storage bunkers at the sprawling Al-Qaqaa complex and nearby structures. U.N. nuclear inspectors placed fresh seals over the bunker doors in January 2003. The inspectors visited Al-Qaqaa for the last time that March 15 and reported that the seals were not broken; concluding the weapons were still inside at the time.


A U.S. military reconaissance image, taken of Al Qaqaa on March 17, shows two vehicles, presumably Iraqi, outside a bunker at Al-Qaqaa. But Di Rita said that bunker was not known to contain any of the 377 tons, and that the image only shows that there was activity at the depot after U.N. inspectors left.


Elements of the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division arrived in the area on April 3 en route to Baghdad. They fought a battle with Iraqi forces inside Al Qaqaa and moved on, leaving a battalion behind to clear out enemy fighters in the area. Troops found other weapons, including artillery shells, on the base, he said. They didn't specifically search for the 377 tons of high explosives that are missing. On April 6, the battalion left for Baghdad.


Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others have advanced the theory that the materials were removed before U.S. forces arrived, saying looting that much material would be impossible by small-scale thieves, and that a large-scale theft would have involved lots of trucks and would have been detected.


About four days later, another large unit, the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division, moved into the area. That unit did not search Al-Qaqaa. A unit spokesman said there was heavy looting in the area at the time.





On April 13, Pearson's ordnance-disposal team arrived and took the 250 tons out in a day. That materiel was later destroyed by U.S. forces. His comments may suggest that some of it was still there when U.S. forces arrived.

On April 18, a Minnesota television crew traveling with the 101st Airborne shot a videotape of troops as they first opened the bunkers at the Al-Qaqaa that shows what appeared to be high explosives still in barrels and bearing the markings of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

U.S. weapons hunters did not give the area a thorough search until May, when they visited on three occasions, starting May 8. They searched every building on the compound over the course of those three visits, but did not find any material or explosives that had been marked by the IAEA.

Just opened on the 18th....after the other soldiers removed it on the 13th?

Big search in May and the rest was gone?

(Doesn't sound OWNED to me!)