Copy/Paste from Drudge.


XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE OCT 26 2004 11:02:38 ET XXXXX

60 MINS PLANNED BUSH MISSING EXPLOSIVES STORY FOR ELECTION EVE

News of missing explosives in Iraq -- first reported in April 2003 -- was being resurrected for a 60 MINUTES election eve broadcast designed to knock the Bush administration into a crises mode.

Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of 60 MINUTES, said in a statement that "our plan was to run the story on October 31."

Elizabeth Jensen at the LOS ANGELES TIMES details on Tuesday how CBS NEWS and 60 MINUTES lost the story [which repackaged previously reported information on a large cache of explosives missing in Iraq, first published and broadcast in 2003].

The story instead debuted in the NYT. The paper slugged the story about missing explosives from April 2003 as "exclusive."

An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.

According to NBCNEWS, the explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.

It is not clear who exactly shopped an election eve repackaging of the missing explosives story.

The LA TIMES claims: The source on the story first went to 60 MINUTES but also expressed interest in working with the NY TIMES... "The tip was received last Wednesday."

CBSNEWS' plan to unleash the story just 24 hours before election day had one senior Bush official outraged.

"Darn, I wanted to see the forged documents to show how this was somehow covered up," the Bush source, who asked not to be named, mocked, recalling last months CBS airing of fraudulent Bush national guard letters.

Developing...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
(c)DRUDGE REPORT 2004
Not for reproduction without permission of the author

meh? /shrug

I read something about this yesterday, hmm. It looks like the iraqi civilians are blowing themselves up and everything or everyone around them with the "missing" fireworks.

Do you know when 60 Minutes airs? Sundays, such as Sunday October 31st. This whine might hold water if there was a "60 Minutes special report" on election eve, but they are following their own normal schedule, discussing a topic that recently garnered media attention.

To recap for those at home: The International Atomic Energy Agency had the Al Qaqaa complex inventoried and under seal in January 2003. They returnd in March 2003 and found the seals to still be in place. At some point between that search and soon after the US took over Iraq, these explosives disappeared. From the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html?ei=5094&en=fd35fdf4b6d46d61&hp=&ex=1098763200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all&position=):
I.A.E.A. experts say they assume that just before the invasion the Iraqis followed their standard practice of moving crucial explosives out of buildings, so they would not be tempting targets. If so, the experts say, the Iraqi must have broken seals from the arms agency on bunker doors and moved most of the HMX to nearby fields, where it would have been lightly camouflaged - and ripe for looting. But the Bush administration would not allow the agency back into the country to verify the status of the stockpile. In May 2004, Iraqi officials say in interviews, they warned L. Paul Bremer III, the American head of the occupation authority, that Al Qaqaa had probably been looted. It is unclear if that warning was passed anywhere. Efforts to reach Mr. Bremer by telephone were unsuccessful.

But by the spring of 2004, the Americans were preoccupied with the transfer of authority to Iraq, and the insurgency was gaining strength. "It's not an excuse," said one senior administration official. "But a lot of things went by the boards." So in May Paul Bremer knew that Al Qaqaa had been looted (or of the likelihood, in which case it could be easily checked). But this is really only receiving attention now, and not because the Bush administration has come forth with it. The Iraqi Interim government reported it to IAEA, and from there it's come to the attention of the media.


The real question isn't why 60 Minutes is airing the story on a regularly scheduled edition or their program, but why Bush didn't make it public or at least notify/communicate with IAEA about it prior to the election. Makes me wonder what other "oversights" we won't learn about til mid-November.

With all due respect to Drudge's fine reporting standards, this isn't a conspiracy to dig up a year and half old story. The Iraqi Interim Government reported to the IAEA on Oct 10 that the explosives were missing. The IAEA then reported that to the Bush administration on Oct 15, who then ordered an investigation of what they had been trying to keep under wraps. That's why this is making news now.

An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.
That's great and all, especially since news crews are known to be explosive experts, but the first inspection by US forces of Al-Qa Qaa was on April 4, 2003. This was found during that inspection

Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, said troops found thousands of five-centimetre by 12-centimetre boxes, each containing three vials of white powder, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in chemical warfare.

A senior U.S. official familiar with initial testing said the powder was believed to be explosives. The finding would be consistent with the plant's stated production capabilities in the field of basic raw materials for explosives and propellants.
That's what is now missing. And it wasn't the liberal media that dug this up, it was the hand picked Iraqi Interim Government that brought this to light.

Fil

NBC News: Miklaszewski: “April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al Qakaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and is produced for the specific engineering requirements needed for ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads.” (NBC’s “Nightly News,” 10/25/04)
So now you people are bitching that we didn't invade fast enough, or we messed up Saddam's game of waiting for the sanctions to fall so he could continue with his real agenda?

What the fuck do you think he was doing with this stuff? Did he have a mountain to move or what?

You people are disconnected and drooling in your own kool-aid. Wake the fuck up won't you please? Remove your head from your ass and inhale for the first time in three years.

At least CBSNews (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/25/iraq/main651082.shtml) is getting it together now...

"Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said coalition forces were present in the vicinity of the site both during and after major combat operations, which ended May 1, 2003 — and searched the facility but found none of the explosives material in question. That raised the possibility that the explosives had disappeared before U.S. soldiers could secure the site in the immediate invasion aftermath."
CBS has better credibility now than NYT. At least they're correcting their errors. Haha.

anyway, this stuff is NOT lootable, at least not 380 tons of it.

Do you really think after the invasion, at least 40 semi-trucks specifically fit to handle this type of cargo would be able to go anywhere in Iraq carrying this stuff without getting caught? This shit was gone before we got there, and it was an organized movement. A gang of looters and terrorist wannabes is not going to be able to pull off something this big off.

But Saddam wasn't a threat anyway, never was. Nope, never. Just a benevolent dictator giving the little kiddies free healthcare and kite lessons.

Oh, didnt Rush and Hannity tell you that part? No? They forgot to mention it? How very odd.

The real question isn't why 60 Minutes is airing the story on a regularly scheduled edition or their program, but why Bush didn't make it public or at least notify/communicate with IAEA about it prior to the election. Makes me wonder what other "oversights" we won't learn about til mid-November.
Why you ask? Well 'll tel lyou why. CBS is in league with the NY times to try and manipulate the elections. Libieral/socialist media agenda. Never mind that these weapons were looted right before we got there. THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN U.N.! Boy the U.N. is sure alot of help.

Liberal Media Conspiracy

Is it? then why would CBS try and re-hash this old story in a special 2 days before the election?

ratings

So now you people are bitching that we didn't invade fast enough, or we messed up Saddam's game of waiting for the sanctions to fall so he could continue with his real agenda?Get with the program, no one has said anything of the sort. Do you just hit Reply without reading and cut/paste whatever your Rush Limbaugh Commemorative Vicodin head trip implants in your skull? A few hundred tons of explosives have gone missing and are probably being used to blow up our troops.

A follow up by NBC's Jim Miklaszewski:
Following up on that story from last night, military officials tell NBC News that on April 10, 2003, when the Second Brigade of the 101st Airborne entered the Al QaQaa weapons facility, south of Baghdad, that those troops were actually on their way to Baghdad, that they were not actively involved in the search for any weapons, including the high explosives, HMX and RDX. The troops did observe stock piles of conventional weapons but no HMX or RDX. And because the Al Qaqaa facility is so huge, it's not clear that those troops from the 101st were actually anywhere near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX.At the time, Al Qaqaa was a pit stop on the way to Baghdad. The IAEA knew these materials were present from March. A systematic search of the facility could have brought any materials present under US control. But to hell with securing anything, OTM Baghdad!
Do you really think after the invasion, at least 40 semi-trucks specifically fit to handle this type of cargo would be able to go anywhere in Iraq carrying this stuff without getting caught?Given the number of satellites and our level of surveillance over the country, it's hard to believe 40 trucks could have carried this stuff away at ANY time in the window of opportunity. And gosh, with that kind of cargo there, would it be an actual surprise that there would be trucks that could carry it readily available? "Inconceivable!" says the man with his head firmly placed in Bush's ass.
A gang of looters and terrorist wannabes is not going to be able to pull off something this big off.Unless they had the support of former Iraqi military (you know, the people Bush fired) sympathetic to their cause.
But Saddam wasn't a threat anyway, never was. Nope, never. Just a benevolent dictator giving the little kiddies free healthcare and kite lessons.It's comical seeing you keep tossing these comments into the field, as if anyone has ever said shit like this. But at least Kim Il Jong can rest easy at night, knowing that Bush had such a hard on for Saddam that he couldn't see the real WMD threat.

Personally, I don't care much when the explosives were taken. I'd just like them found before it's used on the troops.
CBS is in league with the NY times to try and manipulate the elections. Libieral/socialist media agenda.Your tin foil hat needs adjusting. It's the Greys/Illuminati media agenda.
Never mind that these weapons were looted right before we got there. THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN U.N.! Boy the U.N. is sure alot of help.Might have been more help if they hadn't gotten the boot and/or been allowed back into the country to act upon information in their possession (and ignored by the US, so it seems).
Is it? then why would CBS try and re-hash this old story in a special 2 days before the election?Maybe because it's current news, and 60 Minutes runs on Sundays? I know it's dark in there, but seriously...

Maybe because it's current news

A story that is a year to a year and a half is current? Now you're just reaching. Good going Mr. Rather...err..Thormir.

"A story that is a year to a year and a half is current? Now you're just reaching. Good going Mr. Rather...err..Thormir."


Osgiliath, are you being serious? Read the the first posts, spec. Filatal's first paragraph before you embarass yourself more.

Quote:
So now you people are bitching that we didn't invade fast enough, or we messed up Saddam's game of waiting for the sanctions to fall so he could continue with his real agenda?

Get with the program, no one has said anything of the sort.
Congratulations! You made it almost an entire post without saying it:

Might have been more help if they hadn't gotten the boot and/or been allowed back into the country to act upon information in their possession (and ignored by the US, so it seems).
Grab your head, twist, pull, do whatever, but please allow yourself some air.

A few hundred tons of explosives have gone missing and are probably being used to blow up our troops.
Nope. "Other Pentagon officials, also speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested that the explosives could have been hidden elsewhere before the war. They also stressed that there is no evidence HMX or RDX have been used against coalition forces in Iraq."

At the time, Al Qaqaa was a pit stop on the way to Baghdad. The IAEA knew these materials were present from March. A systematic search of the facility could have brought any materials present under US control. But to hell with securing anything, OTM Baghdad!
The 101st spent an entire day at this so-called pit stop. But you know the IAEA only spent a few minutes at each location didn't you? Woohoo! That's some security there. But you and Kerry and others would rather trash the 101st and US military's capabilities and competence to score some quick political points! How's it feel to trust the UN over your own country's military?

Given the number of satellites and our level of surveillance over the country, it's hard to believe 40 trucks could have carried this stuff away at ANY time in the window of opportunity. And gosh, with that kind of cargo there, would it be an actual surprise that there would be trucks that could carry it readily available? "Inconceivable!" says the man with his head firmly placed in Bush's ass.

Unless they had the support of former Iraqi military (you know, the people Bush fired) sympathetic to their cause.
So they could, but they couldn't? You know you're basically saying we're James Bondish is our capabilities. Come back to Earth Thormir, we're better than the UN but we're not THAT good. There were 4 weeks? at least after the last IAEA inspected the place, till the 101st first came through. That's enough time for Saddam or some other organized company of men to truck this stuff off. After we came through enroute to Baghdad, and then came back to secure it more properly, there's just no time or opportunity that it could be done. We had ground intelligence, unmanned drones, and more aerial intelligence during this time and they certainly would not have allowed any organized group of men to coordinate the level of activity this would have required. No way no how, they would have been little crispies.

You say I have my head up Bush's ass. Bush has been inept in response to this as usual. Seriously pisses me off... but no, I have just been reading what the soldiers who were actually there have to say, and I place my trust in that over anything else.

Take this however you wish:

"I was serving as a [identifying information removed] staff member in the 101st during the time in question. The Commander on the site had complete real time intelligence on what to expect and possibly find at the Al-QaQaa depot. The ordinance in question was not found when teams were sent in to inspect and secure the area. When this information was relayed, Operational plans were adjusted and the unit moved forward. Had the ordinance in question been discovered, a security team would have been left in place."

We have the best trained soldiers in the world, and they had a clear objective for this depot. I trust they would have done it if it was there, just like the objectives for 99.98% of the other materials that needed securing. This 380 tons is only 0.02% of the materials actually secured in the invasion.

It's comical seeing you keep tossing these comments into the field, as if anyone has ever said shit like this. But at least Kim Il Jong can rest easy at night, knowing that Bush had such a hard on for Saddam that he couldn't see the real WMD threat.
Thank you Clinton and Carter for giving us the nuclear power wielding lunatic Kim Jung Il! But at least he's not shooting at our air force like Saddam was, or invading his little neighboring countries like Saddam was, or using his WMD on his own population like Saddam was, or funding terrorists like Saddam was.

Oh, I'm sorry, you were trying to make a comparison or something? Sorry, don't see it here. Your attempt was sophmoronic.

This issue was known. That's what I am saying by CBS/NY TIMES dredging it up all this time later just to try and throw a last minute wrench into the Bush re-election. Why bring this up at all if not to make waves?

It isn't a year and half old news. Perhaps you need to look at the calendar. Since it has been stated at least twice in this thread and you don't have it through your thick skull yet, here it is a third time.

On October 10, 2004, the Iraqi Interim Government reported the missing explosives to the IAEA. The IAEA reported this to the Bush Administration and the Security Council on October 15, 2004.

It is current news, thanks to the Iraqi government. Unless you think that the NYT and CBS have some control over the Iraqi government, I am at a loss as to how you think this story has been engineered.

NBC did not report that there was missing explosive on April 10 2003, its just now that this has come up that a news crew said, "Hey, I remember being there and didn't recall seeing any explosives." Which isn't exactly what Lai Ling Jew ( the embedded reporter ) actually said, anyway. She said she never saw a search for the explosives, but the right wing spin doctors have turned that into her saying she didn't see the explosives.

You also have to ignore the fact that the US documented explosives there on April 4, 2003 ( they were hoping they were chemical weapons, but it didn't pan out ).

You are only digging your hole deeper. In fact, what this administration did was try to hide the fact that the explosives had disappeared but the Iraqi government decided to report it. It may have happened a year and half ago, but it wasn't known. I guess in your world, if a thief robs you and doesn't get caught for a year, he's home free.

is produced for the specific engineering requirements needed for ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads NBC is being a little hyberbolic there. RDX is very powerful explosive without question, but it is the 2nd most common explosive in the world ( after TNT ), makes up 91% of C-4, and has limited use in commercial rat poisons. RDX and HMX are needed for for both of those, but are not specifically produced for it.

Fil

Congratulations! You made it almost an entire post without saying itIf you didn't rely so dearly on attacking strawmen, I wouldn't have to mention it.
Grab your head, twist, pull, do whatever, but please allow yourself some air.Ah, the "head up the ass" swipe. akipt is like the worst stereotype of the EQ warrior: you should have more plays in the book than just pressing "Taunt." And you call me sophmoric? Kindergarten must be rough on you.
Nope. "Other Pentagon officials, also speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested that the explosives could have been hidden elsewhere before the war. They also stressed that there is no evidence HMX or RDX have been used against coalition forces in Iraq."
From the team that brough you evidence for WMD! But then we have this:[/i]
government officials who spoke to the Nelson Report seemed to think that's very likely. One US government official told Nelson, "this is the most likely primary source of the explosives which have been used to blow up Humvees and in all the deadly car bomb attacks since the Occupation began." Another official told him, "this is the stuff the bad guys have been using to kill our troops."
So from this we can gather that there "is no evidence" the explosives have been used against coalition forces, but "this is most likely the primary source" of material used to kill our troops.
The 101st spent an entire day at this so-called pit stop. But you know the IAEA only spent a few minutes at each location didn't you? Woohoo!A few minutes? Care to back that up? And 10,000 troops could spend the whole day in Al-Qaqaa, but if they don't look around, they won't find much. The embedded reporter didn't note any serious or thorough search, and Filatal already quoted the findings of explosives from a week earlier.
But you and Kerry and others would rather trash the 101st and US military's capabilities and competence to score some quick political points! How's it feel to trust the UN over your own country's military?Hah! Are you just cut/pasting from one of Bush's stump speeches now? Can you possibly divine the difference between pointing out bad leadership decisions and the men who follow the orders? I can very well. Our troops are capable and competent when led capably and competently. Bush's hardon for getting Saddam himself, the big trophy for the mantel piece, meant sacrificing anything that might produce delay or impedance, such as the goodies at Al-Qaqaa, and our current terrorist bugbear, al-Zarqawi. Let more strawmen fly!
After we came through enroute to Baghdad, and then came back to secure it more properly...QED. Perhaps...if he had more troops... But no, he did everything perfectly and wouldn't change a thing about the war. Bush has made no mistakes in his administration except maybe for some people he appointed (i.e., "It's their fault, not mine.")
You say I have my head up Bush's ass. Bush has been inept in response to this as usual. Seriously pisses me off...Face it, you are hopelessly infatuated with Bush; it's like religion for you. Strange, but readily apparent. "As usual?" No, though the last couple years have been miserable. I thought he handled the spy jet/China episode well. Rather downhill from there, though.
Take this however you wish:Was this from the April 4th entry into Al-Qaqaa or the later entry? If the latter then no, they wouldn't find anything. It was gone. And make no mistake, I have the utmost respect and affection for our troops. And since I regard Iraq as a fool's errand, I regard their deaths as needless. And that seriously pisses me off.
Thank you Clinton and Carter for giving us the nuclear power wielding lunatic Kim Jung Il!Don't forget to thank Reagan for Saddam. :rolleyes: But we have better reason to believe Il has weapons and is a real threat than we ever have with Saddam, and he's still in place.
But at least he's not shooting at our air force like Saddam was, or invading his little neighboring countries like Saddam was, or using his WMD on his own population like Saddam was, or funding terrorists like Saddam was.Well, we're not flying jets through his borders like we did in Iraq. Go figure. And really, what does Il have to invade? The surrounding countries aren't exactly the pick of the planet. Maybe he could run to Thailand to supplement NK's hooker industry? Il doesn't need to use WMD on his own population; they starve by the millions just fine on their own. Funding terrorists? Heh. You do remember that Bush proclaimed Il part of the Axis of Evil, right? Iraq, Iran...North Korea! It's EVIL, man! EVIL! But no, Saddam may someday in the far future be a threat, so it's off to Baghdad. We better take out Lithuania while we're at it. They looked at us funny and might someday be a threat.
Oh, I'm sorry, you were trying to make a comparison or something? Sorry, don't see it here.We could fill the internet to the rim with the things you don't see, and it would still go over your head. Perhaps it already has.

Regarding Saddam and terrorism support (specifically, al-Zarqawi), this from The American Conservative print edition:
The CTC concluded that Saddam Hussein had not materially supported Zarqawi before the U.S.-led invasion and that Zarqawi's infrastructure in Iraq before the war was confined to the northern no-fly zones of Kurdistan, beyond Baghdad's reach. Cheney reacted with fury, screaming at the briefer that CIA was trying to get John Kerry elected by contradicting the president's stance that Saddam had supported terrorism and therefore needed to be overthrown. The hapless briefer was shaken by the vice president's outburst, and the incident was reported back to [newly appointed CIA director Porter] Goss, who indicated that he was reluctant to confront the vice president's staff regarding it.Talk about shooting the messenger. Pity Bush/Cheney didn't try to shoot Zarqawi instead.

Will CBS never learn?
Pretty much.

BTW, the biggest threat about all this stuff going missing is not them trying to build a nuke. Plutonium is still not offered for auction on Ebay yet. No, the biggest threat is the lifetime supply of high explosive for making IEDs and other such terrorist minded booby traps. Either way you slice it, its a major screw up.

If you didn't rely so dearly on attacking strawmen, I wouldn't have to mention it.Actually, you said that one in response to someone else. But who's counting?
And since I regard Iraq as a fool's errand, I regard their deaths as needless.
Anyway...

Quote:
government officials who spoke to the Nelson Report seemed to think that's very likely. One US government official told Nelson, "this is the most likely primary source of the explosives which have been used to blow up Humvees and in all the deadly car bomb attacks since the Occupation began." Another official told him, "this is the stuff the bad guys have been using to kill our troops."

So from this we can gather that there "is no evidence" the explosives have been used against coalition forces, but "this is most likely the primary source" of material used to kill our troops. You need to be schooled. You're thinking of C-4, RDX and HMX can't be used like that, or not without alot of work and technical knowledge these terrorists aren't going to have...

A key point is that this is not dense stuff, where you can get a lot of weight into a small vehicle. If this was really in its raw form, it is white powder, like cornstarch or a light powdered sugar (NOT granulated sugar). Blow on it and it flies in the breeze- the stories I've seen haven't said much about what form it was in, but you would want it to be relatively raw so you could form it into main charges for artillery, etc. They don't pour granules into shells, it is mixed with binders and melted sonit will take a shape. You can't be a nice terrorist, happen by, stick some in your pocket, and run away while the US Army isn't looking- it isn't "plastic" (like, say, comp C4, which is a plastic matrix impregnated with HE, thus has a lot of filler to make it shapeable). The kinds of trucks you would need to haul it are like grain hoppers, and lots of them. You can't stack it on pallets.

That is why the nonsense about vandals running off with the stuff is just that — nonsense.

The issue, as always with explosives, is not HE- it is how to get the stuff to blow up. You can hit compressed RDX or HMX with a hammer and not set it off. And you can properly detonate ammonium nitrate fertilizer, as was done at the Oklahoma City Federal building by McVeigh et al, and have a disaster. You can also detonate wheat dust in a rural grain elevator and re-create the bombing of the African embassies.

The reason that old artillery ammunition is desired for creation of IEDs is not that it has high explosive in it, it is because those rounds have fuzes, lead cups, and boosters- the full fire train needed to make HE go "boom". Remember your fireplace- you need to start with a match, then crumpled newspaper, add twigs when they are roaring effectively, then sticks, then small branches, etc. Trying to do something useful with pure HMX or RDX is like trying to flick your BIC lighter at a 20 pound pure oak log. It will be a long time before you warm up.

The only way you make those 40 trucks crammed full of HE blow up is to set off an explosion near them. The Saddam drivers carrying them all to Syria and elsewhere in mid-March were probably smoking as they drove, with relative safety. Raw HE is easy to find- what is a challenge is making it controllably useful.
And 10,000 troops could spend the whole day in Al-Qaqaa, but if they don't look around, they won't find much. The embedded reporter didn't note any serious or thorough search, and Filatal already quoted the findings of explosives from a week earlier.
Here's the problem with armchair quarterbacking, it makes you look like a tool. If you want to argue whether we should have gone into Iraq or not, that's cool. Bitching about the decisions our military officers make on the ground is another thing. And bitching about a non-issue before all the facts are presented is lame.

Like...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/iraq/main547667.shtml

The site is enormous and U.S. troops are still investigating it for potential weapons of mass destruction, the official said.
...
The facility is part of a larger complex known as the Latifiyah Explosives and Ammunition Plant al Qa Qaa. April 3rd, 2003 and almost a week before Baghdad fell and we're all over this place looking for WMD and finding all kinds of interesting stuff. Including...3000 boxes, each containing 3 vials of this powdered explosive.

You've referred to this twice before, but 9000 vials is NOT going to come anywhere near 380 tons of it. You have any clue how big a warehouse 380 tons of boxed vials would be? This stuff was gone before April 4, 2003, otherwise they would have found it.

But who found the vials? The 101st? No, their mission was to head on up the road and kick some ass. The security fell to the 3rd Infantry Division who showed up on the scene the next day, and they stayed there. All these initial allegations and finger pointing by the New york Times at the 101st officers for failing to secure the place is wrong. They interviewed the wrong people. they should have been looking at the 3rd ID and and even researched what their own reporters found.

But you'd rather see Kerry elected, to hell with the truth.

But we have better reason to believe Il has weapons and is a real threat than we ever have with Saddam, and he's still in place. Thormir says, "lalalalala help me! lalala lalala allalala lalalal My head lalalalalala lalalalala is stuck lalalalala so far lalala lalalalalalalalalala up my ass lalalalalala lalalala I can't lalalalalala lalalalalal lalalal breathe lalalalala lalalaa"

Think big picture dude, and stop armchair quaterbacking.

Kerry is quite good at it though...

Before anyone knew what Tora Bora was (where he approved of our actions there as well), Kerry had this to say:

In an interview with John McLaughlin on November 16, 2001--just two months after September 11 and before victory in Afghanistan was assured--Kerry was asked, "What do we have to worry about ?" Kerry answered:

[i]I have no doubt, I've never had any doubt--and I've said this publicly--about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis?
Instead of bitching about North Korea like little hummingbird, you should ask Kerry about Iraq and the swamp of terrorism that needed to be drained?

You need to be schooled. You're thinking of C-4, RDX and HMX can't be used like that, or not without alot of work and technical knowledge these terrorists aren't going to have... The only one being schooled here is you. If the terrorists have been joined by ex-Iraqi army or simply have well-trained personnel, then they have the technical knowledge in hand. Regardless, the loss of this materal is not insignificant. BTW, has the Commander-in-Chief addressed it at all?
Here's the problem with armchair quarterbacking, it makes you look like a tool. As opposed to dancing to every word Bush says, including laughable claims like "criticizing Bush's war policy equates to criticizing our troops." Tool.
If you want to argue whether we should have gone into Iraq or not, that's cool. Bitching about the decisions our military officers make on the ground is another thing. And bitching about a non-issue before all the facts are presented is lame. It's the President's choice whether to secure captured facilities or fly down the road to Baghdad. If he'd taken enough troops, he could have had it both ways, and the occupation could have gone more smoothly from the get go. This isn't me armchair quarterbacking, this is a well-accepted view outside of Bush's skull.
But you'd rather see Kerry elected, to hell with the truth. Actually, the truth is what makes me want Bush deposed. You may share Bush's "I've done no wrong" fantasy world, I do not. Kerry is far from the ideal choice as a replacement, but a C- beats an F.
Thormir says, "lalalalala help me! lalala lalala allalala lalalal My head lalalalalala lalalalala is stuck lalalalala so far lalala lalalalalalalalalala up my ass lalalalalala lalalala I can't lalalalalala lalalalalal lalalal breathe lalalalala lalalaa" Wow, almost got through the post without another "head up my ass" retort. But this paragraph does display the depth of your thinking and reflects that level of dignity you claim Bush brought to the White House.
Think big picture dude, and stop armchair quaterbacking. Calling the President accountable for his decisions isn't armchair quarterbacking. He got us into this fucking shithole, and while Iraq may be a shining beacon of freedom and light in fantasy land, in the real world it's a mire that we'll be stuck in for years. Bush wants to protect us from terrorists? Fuck, he fed our people right to them.

Instead of bitching about North Korea like little hummingbird, you should ask Kerry about Iraq and the swamp of terrorism that needed to be drained? Don't know why you're quoting Kerry; he's not the President. And unless your point was that Kerry wanted to address Hussein, the Muslim world and global terrorism, you're off on yet another non sequitur. But let's ask Bush about draining that swamp. He can do no wrong, right? If he finds a terrorist, he's going to take action! Right? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/)
“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.
...
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam. From WSJ:
But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn't take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq. Ultimately, the camp was hit just after the invasion of Iraq began. The administration tells us now they weren't sure if al-Zarqawi was there, though why they didn't hit a terrorist camp in area under our control anyway is mind-boggling. But the CIA says differently:
Questions about whether the U.S. missed an opportunity to take out Mr. Zarqawi have been enhanced recently by a CIA report on Mr. Zarqawi, commissioned by Vice President Dick Cheney. Individuals who have been briefed on the report's contents say it specifically cites evidence that Mr. Zarqawi was in the camp during those prewar months. They said the CIA's conclusion was based in part on a review of electronic intercepts, which show that Mr. Zarqawi was using a satellite telephone to discuss matters relating to the camp, and that the intercepts indicated the probability that the calls were being made from inside the camp. Bush didn't go after Al-Zarqawi because he didn't want to sacrifice his case for Iraq. Forget Al-Qaqaa if you want (and you do), this was an undeniable blunder for which we and the Iraqis are paying in blood. When Ayad Allawi blamed the recent deaths of 50 unarmed Iraqi police on the "gross negligence of multinational forces," I initially ascribed his reaction to grief and frustration, but given the above, he may have a point. Only it's not the military he should blame, but the Commander in Chief.

The only one being schooled here is you. If the terrorists have been joined by ex-Iraqi army or simply have well-trained personnel, then they have the technical knowledge in hand.What part of They Were Gone Before We Got There do you not understand? And that is a big If in your statement.

Regardless, the loss of this materal is not insignificant. BTW, has the Commander-in-Chief addressed it at all?
Has Bush addressed it at all? Yeah, we invaded and took this asshole out that was making 400,000 tons of shit that could fuck us up... but you were against that weren't you?

Too bad we stayed too long in UN...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm

It's the President's choice whether to secure captured facilities or fly down the road to Baghdad. If he'd taken enough troops, he could have had it both ways, and the occupation could have gone more smoothly from the get go. This isn't me armchair quarterbacking, this is a well-accepted view outside of Bush's skull.
Let me try this one more time: THEY WERE GONE BEFORE WE GOT THERE. Comprende?

He got us into this fucking shithole
No, Saddam made the mess, we're just cleaning it up.

...and while Iraq may be a shining beacon of freedom and light in fantasy land, in the real world it's a mire that we'll be stuck in for years.
Kinda like we've been stuck in Germany all of these years. Guess that was our fault too huh? But don't worry, two years ago, every lame assed armchair quarterback said the same thing about Afghanistan. Didn't they have their first ever election there recently, with none of the violence that the terrrorists promised?

Bush wants to protect us from terrorists? Fuck, he fed our people right to them.
Fed? HAHAHAHA, ask anyone serving or has served over there if they were "fed" to the terrorists. I highly suspect you'd not like your answer.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.
...
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
And lobbing missiles into far away places to take out a single person has been such a successful endeavor (http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/)? But you weren't for invading Iraq right? So you wanted to just waste his camp ? What the fuck would that have accomplished? Another North Korea is what, and something else you could armchair quaterback about.

Saddam would still be gaming the UN-for-oil program, waiting for France, Germany, and Russia to back off even further on the sanctions, and reconstitute these weapons programs that are literally just sitting around waiting... But you would have been happy, because it wasn't worth the risk. Then in a few years you would smugly bitch about Saddam being just like Kim Jong Il, and why we didn't take him out when we had the chance...

The administration tells us now they weren't sure if al-Zarqawi was there, though why they didn't hit a terrorist camp in area under our control anyway is mind-boggling.
Explain how we were controlling this area, with not a single person on the ground and our air force routinely being shot at while on patrols?

What part of They Were Gone Before We Got There do you not understand?
What part of bullshit do you not understand?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/politics/27bomb.htm ( have to register, so pasting some of it here )

Colonel Anderson, who is now the chief of staff for the division and who spoke by telephone from Fort Campbell, Ky., said his troops had been driving north toward Baghdad and had paused at Al Qaqaa to make plans for their next push. "We happened to stumble on it,'' he said. "I didn't know what the place was supposed to be. We did not get involved in any of the bunkers. It was not our mission. It was not our focus. We were just stopping there on our way to Baghdad. The plan was to leave that very same day. The plan was not to go in there and start searching. It looked like all the other ammunition supply points we had seen already."

So the commander agrees with the embedded reporter, no explosives were seen because no one looked.

The commander, Col. Joseph Anderson, of the Second Brigade of the Army's 101st Airborne Division, said he did not learn until this week that the site, Al Qaqaa, was considered sensitive, or that international inspectors had visited it before the war began in 2003 to inspect explosives that they had tagged during a decade of monitoring.
Earlier this month, officials of the interim Iraqi government informed the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency that the explosives disappeared sometime after the fall of Mr. Hussein on April 9, 2003.
President Bush's aides told reporters that because the soldiers had found no trace of the missing explosives on April 10, they could have been removed before the invasion. They based their assertions on a report broadcast by NBC News on Monday night that showed video images of the 101st arriving at Al Qaqaa. By yesterday afternoon Mr. Bush's aides had moderated their view, saying it was a "mystery" when the explosives disappeared and that Mr. Bush did not want to comment on the matter until the facts were known.


At the Pentagon, a senior official, who asked not to be identified, acknowledged that the timing of the disappearance remained uncertain. "The bottom line is that there is still a lot that is not known," the official said
This next part is important, pay attention.

Colonel Anderson said he did not see any obvious signs of damage when he arrived on April 10, but that his focus was strictly on finding a secure place to collect his troops, who were driving and flying north from Karbala. "There was no sign of looting here," Colonel Anderson said. "Looting was going on in Baghdad, and we were rushing on to Baghdad. We were marshaling in."

No signs of looting on April 10.


The 101st Airborne Division arrived April 10 and left the next day. The next recorded visit by Americans came on May 27, when Task Force 75 inspected Al Qaqaa, but did not find the large quantities of explosives that had been seen in mid-March by the international inspectors. By then, Al Qaqaa had plainly been looted.

Is it possible that the site was cleared between March 17 and April 3? Yes. Is it possible that the site was looted between April 10 and May 27? Yes. But there is no basis for you insisting that they were gone before we got there. The colonel states that he saw no "obvious signs" of looting on April 10, but Paul Bremer states there was obvious looting by the time he saw it in May.


Switching gears now...


Explain how we were controlling this area, with not a single person on the ground and our air force routinely being shot at while on patrols?

The fact that the Kurds controlled the northern part of the country and were able to assist in the fighting there is a pretty good explanation of how we were controlling the area. Would you mind explaining how our air force was routinely being shot at while on patrol? There was an occasional radar lock which resulted in the offending radar station getting blown to pieces. But routine firing? Back that statement up.


Fil

What part of They Were Gone Before We Got There do you not understand? And that is a big If in your statement. Not a big if at all, especially the second part. Were they gone beforehand? Maybe so.
By yesterday afternoon, as Mr. Bush made his way through Wisconsin and Iowa, his aides had moderated their view, saying it was a "mystery" when the explosives disappeared. They said that it could have happened before or after the invasion and that Mr. Bush did not want to comment on the matter until the facts were known. And Cheney has said it's unclear. But as I alluded later in my post, Al-Qaqaa (a name which, with American pronunciation, appropriately describes the Iraqi debacle), is minor compared to the greater Bush blunders of the war and pre-war period. Little consolation if that material is used to blow up our troops.
Has Bush addressed it at all? Yeah, we invaded and took this asshole out that was making 400,000 tons of shit that could fuck us up... but you were against that weren't you? I was asking about Al-Qaqaa, but if you had to say something that even came close to a criticism of Bush your head would explode. So yeah, 400,000 tons of shit that could fuck...well, it could fuck somebody up if they were close enough to Iraq. Fortunately, the US is well far off. BTW, I supported going to war to remove stockpiles of WMD. But we never did find any of that did we? Watching Powell's presentation to the UN I wasn't surprised. I anticipated a smoking gun and got a spent water pistol fo rmy time. Oh, but they might have been carted off to Syria, right? Shall we invade them now as well? The US chased a white rabbit, but let me let Bush himself spell the whole big picture out for you (just shown on CNN):
"A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not who you want as commander in chief."
Too bad we stayed too long in UN... Careful, you're coming dangerously close to criticizing Bush for delaying the war's start. Toe the line, or no Karl Rove action figure for you!
Fed? HAHAHAHA, ask anyone serving or has served over there if they were "fed" to the terrorists. I highly suspect you'd not like your answer. Or I could ask the families of the slain. Their number isn't shrinking.
And lobbing missiles into far away places to take out a single person has been such a successful endeavor (http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/)? But you weren't for invading Iraq right? So you wanted to just waste his camp ? What the fuck would that have accomplished? Another North Korea is what, and something else you could armchair quaterback about. Wow, if you're trying to set a strawman record you're coming close. Bush would be proud. Let's see: the military and CIA have direct evidence that a well-known terrorist is in a camp within an area we have control over. Missiles? Hell, we could send in bombers, troops, whatever. What would that accomplish? DO YOU READ THE NEWS? We're up to what, ~700 people they think Zarqawi's killed in the past few months? We had this guy within our grip, but Bush let him go because he didn't want to risk losing support for the war. Yeah, real tough on terrorism.
Explain how we were controlling this area, with not a single person on the ground and our air force routinely being shot at while on patrols? It's within the no-fly zone. Our air force was routinely patrolling the region. Yes, they were shot at, and they used their missiles to blow AA and radar off the map. We had the ability to blow the place to hell with aircraft or missiles and we had the incentive. The military gave Bush 3 "airtight" plans to take out Zarqawi and the camp, and Bush killed each of them. If you want to ask those questions, ask the Pentagon that drew up the plans. But be careful, that kind of inquisitiveness about Bush's decision making could make your head explode.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/politics/27bomb.htm ... Uh, I honestly cannot believe you're linking to the NYtimes. They're a day late and a dollar short so far. Might as well link to CBS for their opinion of those forged documents, you'll get as far in your argument.

Anyway, all your quotes are nice and all. I'm sure Colonel Anderson (of the 101st) is a great guy, and we all owe him a beer for his service, but he's the wrong guy to be quoting. You need to be quoting the guys from 3rd Infantry Division who came along before he got there.

Here's the link again: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/iraq/main547667.shtml

April 4th, five days before the fall of Baghdad and the six days before Col. Andersen (from your NYT article) got there.

I'll sum it up again tho: The 101st came through, looked around, found your 3000 boxes of vials of explosives, but nothing else. The reason they found these vials is because there were no IAEA seals in place. If there were seals, they would have left a security team in place. But none there, so they left for Baghdad to kick some ass. Then came the 3rd ID, who secured the site on the 4th and began really looking at everything, from the WMD suspected Arabic materials, atropin, and some other stuff, but there were no IAEA seals on any of the bunkers. In other words, the 380 tons of explosives had been moved already. Then your Col. Andersen comes back, but it wasn't the 101st's job to be securing these sites, it was the 3rd ID's job to do that, and they were on it. Again, read the link above.

There was an occasional radar lock which resulted in the offending radar station getting blown to pieces. But routine firing? Back that statement up.Ok, not as common as I first thought, but if you insist...
Coalition Aircraft Respond to Iraqi Attacks in Northern No-Fly Zone (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030227-eucom01.htm) 27 Feb 2003
ONW Coalition Forces Target Iraqi Surface-to-Surface Missile System (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030225-eucom01.htm) 25 Feb 2003
Iraq attacks ONW aircraft monitoring No-Fly zone (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-021204-eucom01.htm) 04 Dec 2002
Iraq attacks ONW aircraft monitoring No-Fly zone (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-021202-eucom01.htm) 02 Dec 2002
Iraq attacks ONW aircraft monitoring No-Fly zone (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-021128-eucom01.htm) 28 Nov 2002
Iraq attacks ONW aircraft monitoring No-Fly zone (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-021118-eucom01.htm) 18 Nov 2002
Iraq attacks ONW aircraft monitoring No-Fly zone (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-021117-eucom01.htm) 17 Nov 2002
ONW aircraft defend against Iraqi anti-aircraft threat (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-021030-eucom01.htm) 30 Oct 2002
Iraq fires AAA at ONW aircraft (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-021022-eurcom01.htm) 22 Oct 2002
Iraq threatens coalition aircraft (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-021009-eucom01.htm) 09 Oct. 2002
Iraqi targets coalition aircraft (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020827-eucom01.htm) August 27, 2002
Iraqi targets coalition aircraft (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020823-eucom01.htm) August 23, 2002
ONW aircraft threatened, Coalition responds (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020704-eucom01.htm) July 4, 2002
Iraq fires AAA at ONW aircraft, Coalition responds (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020626-eucom01.htm) June 19, 2002
ONW aircraft fired upon, Coalition responds (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020528-eucom01.htm) May 28, 2002
Iraq fires AAA at Northern Watch Aircraft (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020501-eucom01.htm) May 01, 2002
Iraq targets Coalition aircraft (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020419-eucom01.htm) April 19, 2002
ONW Aircraft fired upon and targeted by radar (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020228-eucom01.htm) Feb 28, 2002
Iraq fires AAA at ONW aircraft (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020204-eucom01.htm) Feb 4, 2002
Iraqi AAA fired at, radar targets ONW aircraft (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2001/iraq-010904-eucom01.htm) Sept 4, 2001
ONW aircraft fired upon, coalition responds (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2001/iraq-010827-eucom01.htm) Aug 27, 2001
ONW Aircraft fired upon and targeted by radar (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2001/iraq-010817-eucom01.htm) Aug 17, 2001
Iraqi missiles and AAA fired at ONW aircraft (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2001/iraq-010807-eucom01.htm) Aug 07, 2001
ONW aircraft respond to targeting radar, AAA (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2001/iraq-010614-eucom01.htm) Jun 14, 2001
ONW aircraft fired upon and targeted by radar (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2001/iraq-010523-eucom01.htm) May 23, 2001
AAA fired at ONW aircraft (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2001/iraq-010430-eucom01.htm) April 30, 2001
Iraq fires AAA at ONW aircraft (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2001/iraq-010406-eucom01.htm)April 06, 2001
ONW Aircraft fired upon and targeted by radar (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2001/iraq-010222-eucom01.htm) Feb 22, 2001
ONW Aircraft fired upon and targeted by radar (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2001/iraq-010212-eucom01.htm) Feb 12, 2001
Iraqi missiles and AAA fired at ONW aircraft (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2001/iraq-010124-eucom01.htm) Jan 24, 2001

Not a big if at all, especially the second part. Were they gone beforehand? Maybe so.I understand this is a difficult subject for you, but do try to follow along. Read the above linked article to cbsnews.com, it's pretty straightforward.

And Cheney has said it's unclear. ... You're like Fil, quoting from old sources. New stuff found today ok? Follow along or stay home.

BTW, I supported going to war to remove stockpiles of WMD. But we never did find any of that did we?Looks like we're still looking for 380 tons of it. But I guess we should have allowed Saddam to move his mountain before we chased him into a hole. Oops.

"A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not who you want as commander in chief."Saddam in power, sanctions would have been lifted, WMD programs resumed, as the Duelfer report explained quite clearly. But since you can't square that around your other wants, you ignore it. The right decision was done, Saddam is gone. Buh bye.

Careful, you're coming dangerously close to criticizing Bush for delaying the war's start. Toe the line, or no Karl Rove action figure for you!Pay attention, I criticize Bush all the time - I did in this thread twice already.

Or I could ask the families of the slain. Their number isn't shrinking.Dispicable.

Ah, that was the nothern no-fly zone encounters... check here for the southern no fly zone...


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/southern_watch-2003.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/southern_watch-2002.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/southern_watch-2001.htm

I think I have sufficiently backed up my previous claim.

Why cant the military say for sure that the explosives werent there? The uncertanity is in and of itself an indictment.
Either they were or they werent. Why is an investigation needed? Oh, because the election is in 6 days and by President Bush saying "we dont know anything yet, an investigation is pending" is an attempt to sidestep the issue.

Oh and...
You need to be schooled. You're thinking of C-4, RDX and HMX can't be used like that, or not without alot of work and technical knowledge these terrorists aren't going to have...

You mean like these guys were?



RDX was used in 1988 Pan Am bombing

August 30, 1996

SMITHTOWN, New York (CNN) -- Investigators have found traces of the chemical RDX in the wreckage of TWA Flight 800, CNN has learned. The substance was one of the ingredients in the deadly bomb that exploded aboard Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Investigators admitted Friday that they had found traces of a second chemical on pieces of wreckage from the July 17 TWA crash, but wouldn't say what the substance was or where it was found.

But two sources close to the probe told CNN it was RDX. RDX and PETN -- traces of the latter were found on TWA debris earlier this month -- combine to make Semtex, the explosive used in the Pan Am crash in 1988 that killed 270 people. That crash was blamed on terrorists.

FBI scientists found the trace of PETN on a section of flooring from the center of the TWA Boeing 747 jetliner.

Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland...Yes, like that. Lybian trained, equiped, and supported. Not some looting gang of Islamo terrorists, but by an entire country.

Thanks for making my point.

... Uh, I honestly cannot believe you're linking to the NYtimes. They're a day late and a dollar short so far. Might as well link to CBS for their opinion of those forged documents, you'll get as far in your argument. You're right, linking to the NYT is just as bad as linking to CBS, which, as we both know, only a complete dolt would do.
Here's the link again: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003...ain547667.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/iraq/main547667.shtml) Err...yeah.
Anyway, interesting to see the Iraqis' thoughts (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/iraq_us_explosives) on all this. I don't share al-Sharaa's certainty, but I'd like to see the "certified statements...which the US-led coalition was aware of."
Saddam in power, sanctions would have been lifted, WMD programs resumed, as the Duelfer report explained quite clearly. But since you can't square that around your other wants, you ignore it. The right decision was done, Saddam is gone. Buh bye. The primary justification given for war was that Hussein had WMD and was developing more. He was an imminent threat that had to be removed. The Duelfer report said just the opposite.
I think I have sufficiently backed up my previous claim. Your claim (beyond that coalition aircraft were routinely fired upon) seems to be that we couldn't hit Al-Zarqawi's camp because it's too dangerous to aircraft (as opposed to, say, invading the country outright?). But slightly less than half the reports mentioned in the first of your above links were airplanes dropping informational leaflets. Clearly that program wasn't killed like the plan to hit the terrorist camp.
Pay attention, I criticize Bush all the time - I did in this thread twice already. Can't say I noticed these recurrent criticisms, but I'll take your word for it. So here's the question: Should Bush have hit Al-Zarqawi when the CIA had him located in that camp and the military had a plan of attack? Or was it better to skip the operation, in case it weakened support for the invasion of Iraq?

Would you mind explaining how our air force was routinely being shot at while on patrol? There was an occasional radar lock which resulted in the offending radar station getting blown to pieces. But routine firing? Back that statement up.




As Akipt has stated and I have seen there were numerous cases of firing. Seen aircraft come back with holes all the time from the Iraqis firing at them. So occasional radar lock? I think not. For the record I was stationed on the USS Enterprise through 2 gulf deployments and have seen many aircraft with holes in them due to firing. Was there for Desert Fox(1998-1999) when Clinton got tired of them shooting at our planes and was there just before and after Sept. 11th, 2001.

You forgot something Akipt.. Libyan and IRANIAN trained.

The primary justification given for war was that Hussein had WMD and was developing more. He was an imminent threat that had to be removed. The Duelfer report said just the opposite. Obviously you've read some Dean-brigade newsletter, try reading the real deal:

— "Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have U.N. sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with U.N. inspections — to gain support for lifting sanctions — with his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face."


— "The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program in late 1996 was a key turning point for the regime. OFF rescued Baghdad's economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

— "Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability — which was essentially destroyed in 1991 — after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized. ... Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability — in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks — but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare capabilities."

— "Continued oil smuggling efforts and the manipulation of the U.N. Oil-For-Food contracts emboldened Saddam to pursue his military reconstitution efforts starting in 1997 and peaking in 2001. These efforts covered arms, dual-use goods acquisition and some WMD-related programs."

— "Saddam directed the regime's key ministries and governmental agencies to devise and implement strategies, policies and techniques to discredit the U.N. sanctions, harass U.N. personnel in Iraq and discredit the U.S. At the same time, according to reporting, he also wanted to obfuscate Iraq's refusal to reveal the nature of its WMD and WMD-related programs, their capabilities and his intentions."

— "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs played a critical role in facilitating Iraq's procurement of military goods, dual-use goods pertaining to WMD, transporting cash and other valuable goods earned by illicit oil revenue, and forming and implementing a diplomatic strategy to end U.N. sanctions and the subsequent Oil-For-Food program by nefarious means."

— "Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a chemical weapons effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions judged favorable. — "Depending on its scale, Iraq could have re-established an elementary biological weapons program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so, but (investigators) discovered no indications that the regime was pursuing such a course... Iraq retained some biological weapons seed stocks until their discovery after Operation Iraqi Freedom."

I think I have sufficiently backed up my previous claim. My initial claim, or question rather, was how could we be in control of an area if we didn't have a single soldier on the ground and we were getting shot at just about every other day we were patrolling there.

"In control" is implying that the sanctions and no fly zones were working, which they clearly were not. Neither were the UN inspections. The only safe thing to do was to take him out before he became another opportunity that you could armchair quaterback.

So here's the question: Should Bush have hit Al-Zarqawi when the CIA had him located in that camp and the military had a plan of attack? Or was it better to skip the operation, in case it weakened support for the invasion of Iraq?A damned good question, and something that deserves better treatment than lame assed armchair quarterbacking by someone who hasn't a fucking clue (including myself) about the situation.

So maybe there's something else going on there that we don't know about? Maybe we had a CIA agent in place (and we couldn't contact safely to remove) that Bush really didn't feel wasting in an airstrike while trying to get Zarqawi. Why do I say this? Because we successfully grabbed the ricin in London that came out of this camp. /shrug you decide, seems plausible to me.

Sucks for the 700+ people who have died from the asshole, but this is war and all the more reason to stay the course. But my point is, there's shit going on in this war, as there always is, that we have no fucking clue about and we need to give the people who do know a little more benefit of the doubt, which is sorely lacking in this world we live in now.

You forgot something Akipt.. Libyan and IRANIAN trained.

I didn't know that. Source ? I wanna know.

http://www.ltb.org.uk/displaynews.cfm?nc=59&theyear=2000

http://www.survivalguide.com/terrorist_weapons/explosives.htm

This is a pretty good, you being a Freeper should enjoy it
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091185/posts

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/1991/911118-205496.htm

Do you know when 60 Minutes airs? Sundays, such as Sunday October 31st. This whine might hold water if there was a "60 Minutes special report" on election eve, but they are following their own normal schedule, discussing a topic that recently garnered media attention.
Hey Thormir, take off those blinders:


"The tip was received last Wednesday."

This was planned out to be another last minute hit on Bush, -exactly- like what they did in 2000. The only problem is that it got screwed up this time around, and the NYT came out with the story too early in their eagerness to bash Bush.

The kicker is that this isn't even an attack on Bush- he wasn't on the ground running the war or even managing it - this is an attack on the military.Straight down the pipe from the UN(who gave it to CBS/Times) in an attempt to manipulate our election and pounced on by their boy Kerry.

If you guys could look past the spoon fed propaganda you're choking on you might actually get a clue about what's going on with this whole deal.

Something to think about: we've destroyed over 400,000 tons of weapons in Iraq so far, 377 tons is less than a tenth of a percent of that. Now, if you are wanting to be up in arms over 377 tons of explosives when we've destroyed over 1000x that then how can you honestly say Iraq wasn't a threat to begin with?

No, i'm sorry Crist0. I tried to point that out to the unwashed masses and was immediatly called an emberassment. I was also accused of wearing a tinfoil hat.

No different from that Brit rag's readers writing letters to voters in Ohio, who responded quite appropriately overall.

Why cant the military say for sure that the explosives werent there? The uncertanity is in and of itself an indictment.
You gotta be kiddin' me.... L2, lets agree then that Iraq's WMD's were as there as this stuff was there...... then you are wrong either way. "We didn't find the explosives but they were there, dammit!". "We didn't find WMD's.... they were never there, dammit!"

So which is it?????

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a4bc50c6-2870-11d9-9308-00000e2511c8.html


Well well well! The so called international community hard at work helping to protect the world. Lets not forget these are people Mr. Kerry would like to have more help from in the effort. No thanks.

beat me to it...... Russia moved it..... in the kitchen ..... with the candlestick....
oh and hasta la vista Arafat!

Mea Culpa. There were more attempts than I recall. I still don't believe we were as helpless in the north and south as you claim. The simple fact that there was a Kurdish army in the north to help take Mosul betrays that.

You're like Fil, quoting from old sources
I quote from a story released *today*; you link a story from a year and half ago. And I'm the one quoting old sources?

Anyway, all your quotes are nice and all. I'm sure Colonel Anderson (of the 101st) is a great guy, and we all owe him a beer for his service, but he's the wrong guy to be quoting. You need to be quoting the guys from 3rd Infantry Division who came along before he got there.
Except for the fact that the administration's entire basis for claiming the explosives were gone before they got there were based on the reporter that was embedded with the 101st. Indeed, it was the very first thing you posted on this thread. Now both the reporter and the commander of the 101st have refuted that line. Very worthwhile quoting him. The administration has backed off the that claim, when will you?

I'll sum it up again tho: The 101st came through, looked around, found your 3000 boxes of vials of explosives, but nothing else. ( Bold part done by me )

How do you arrive at that assumption? There are over 1,100 buildings at that facility. I don't know how long the 3rd was there, but it seems reasonable to assume that they were gone by the 10th when the 101st was there. From the time the 101st left there wasn't a single documented visit from American forces until May 27th. 1,100 buildings and surrounding area were searched in a day or two?

A damned good question, and something that deserves better treatment than lame assed armchair quarterbacking by someone who hasn't a fucking clue (including myself) about the situation.
Here is something we can agree about. You and I don't know enough about the situation, which is why I am continually amazed that you claim that "the weapons were already gone". even when the administration you try and defend doesn't make that claim anymore. Not once on this thread have I jumped up and blamed Bush. I am much more of a wait and see type person. The only reason I started responding was the lunacy that "the liberal media" somehow concocted this story out of the trash bin.

Uh, I honestly cannot believe you're linking to the NYtimes. They're a day late and a dollar short so far.
Ok, all this is getting so circular my head is beginning to hurt. Remember where this all started.

Iraqi governemtn: Explosives missing
NYT: Explosives missing
Right wingers: this is old news the NYT is rehashing to influence the election, NBC says the explosives were already gone.
NBC: We did not.
Reasonable people: Uh, the NYT is just reporting what the Iraqi government said.
Right wingers: See, you can't trust the NYT, they are out to get us!!!!!

Really, drop the persecution complex already. I live in a very conservative area and work with a lot of die hard Republicans. Not a single one whines like some of the conservatives on this board.

Fil

I figure stuff like this.
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html#1

or this
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

are both more newsworthy, but we aren't(or didn't in the 2nd link's case) gonna see any coverage of em. Saying that the media is only trying to get bush out is just stupid. The media is just screwed up, on both sides.

If a show was going to try to manipulate the election by airing anti-bush stuff, there's a massive amount of much better ammo then this CBS story.

Bise you miss the point.

We were told that tons of plastic explosive type stuff were in this facility.
This is a major weapons development site, they built a "super cannon" here. Why cant Bush just say, "Listen, we searched this place at our earliest opportunity, the commander filed a report, we found no explosive material."
End of story.
"investigation pending" sounds like "opps we fucked something up"

All we have so far is a 101st unit that stopped there briefly that had no orders to search the place. Considering that 370 tons of explosive material would have taken 20 something trucks to move, and the level of survailence in the lead up to the invasion, the most likely scenario is that it was taken from the facility, a little bit at a time over the course of a US occupation, because it was left unguarded.

This is a blunder, saying "We need an investigation" merely reinforces that.
This place wasnt secured, we didnt have enough troops for the job, as a result, we werent able to do the job we set out to do, and some terrorist group in all likelyhood now owns a lifetime supply of plastique.

We were told that tons of plastic explosive type stuff were in this facility.

Just as we were told about WMD, no?

By Jordan, Egypt, Russia, the UK and more?

Oh yeah, by the way guys, NEWSFLASH:

YOU WERE LIED TO!

The UN is changing its story: now it wasn't 377 tons of explosives, it was actually..are you ready for this?

3

3 tons.

Wake the fuck up already people, this is an attempt to meddle in our election and you should be angry as all hell that they are doing it..and you should give serious thought to Kerry going along with it.

The UN is changing its story: now it wasn't 377 tons of explosives, it was actually..are you ready for this?
The UN, the NYT, CBS. Good God, man, how buried is you head. THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT MADE THE REPORT.

Republicans are trying to blame this story on anyone they think can get them sympathy votes; the Russians, the UN, New York Times, CBS.

And, yes, I have read that story. It claims that a large quantity of of the RDX might have been moved already ( which was about half the 377 tons ). It makes a very weak stretch about whether the HMX ( the other half ) was there or not.

Nut up and blame Allawi if you don't like the story. Trying to blame the messengers is really lame.

Fil

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1

Link to the story, since Crist0 didn't want you reading for yourselves.

Fil

I quote from a story released *today*; you link a story from a year and half ago. And I'm the one quoting old sources? That's my point. All it took was a google search "al-qaqaa april 2003" to find CBS, ABC, AP, and Foxnews reports all making the NYT's two page, above the fold story a bust. And yet, even after the news broke about these previous articles the night before, the NYT was still running with it's original story line with few corrections because it had already gone to the press.

And now ABC has their story that just broke, making it all really a non-issue. Damn, I bet 60 Minutes and Dan Rather are really pissed off they couldn't hold this story down till Sunday huh?

Again, i'm sorry akipt. Apperantly there is not a vast liberal media bias. I guess Dan Rather/CBS/NY Times had a breaking story(hardly thruthful) that needed to be held down until JUUUST before election time. Of course they only report straight down the middle to let America decide. Yes, anyone can see that.

Even if they waited 2 months, its still a presidential fuckup. Why can't you guys look at that side of ... well anything?

Why is it a Presidential fuck up when those explosives may not have been there in the first place? I see not fuck up. Other then Rather/CBS/NY Times of course.

All it took was a google search "al-qaqaa april 2003" to find CBS, ABC, AP, and Foxnews reports all making the NYT's two page, above the fold story a bust
Again, the story from 2003 doesn't state that the explosives were already gone. It does nothing to discredit the original report. But you didn't like me quoting Col. Anderson of the 101st, you wanted a quote from the guys in the 3rd.

Col. Dave Perkins, then the commander of the 2nd Brigade of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, said the immediate concern when his troops reached the Al Qaqaa site on April 3, 2003, was to defeat a couple of hundred Iraqi troops who were firing from the compound as the Americans surged toward Baghdad.
They weren't there long enough to do an inspection of the entire 1,100 buildings either.

You are reading to much into that ABC story. Lots of "may be" and "might have" clauses in it.

Not one of you has yet to explain how the liberal media coerced the Iraqi government into making this report to the IAEA. Do that, and your "oh noz, they are out to get us" line might be believable.

Fil

Obviously you've read some Dean-brigade newsletter, try reading the real deal: Saddam's primary goal...
Saddam wanted...
""Depending on its scale, Iraq could have re-established an elementary biological weapons program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so, but (investigators) discovered no indications that the regime was pursuing such a course... "

Saddam wanted to be a badass, but he didn't have the means:
The government's most definitive account of Iraq's arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday.

The officials said that the 1,000-page report by Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, concluded that Hussein had the desire but not the means to produce unconventional weapons that could threaten his neighbors or the West. My initial claim, or question rather, was how could we be in control of an area if we didn't have a single soldier on the ground and we were getting shot at just about every other day we were patrolling there. We had the Kurds, we had our own very capable Special Forces, we had an air force presence and we had missiles. We had the power to destroy a terrorist camp housing a major player. There isn't much greater control than that granted by the ability to destroy a thing. Just having soldiers on the ground doesn't necessarily give control, as regular bombings (including in the "Green Zone") demonstrate.
So maybe there's something else going on there that we don't know about? Maybe we had a CIA agent in place (and we couldn't contact safely to remove) that Bush really didn't feel wasting in an airstrike while trying to get Zarqawi. Why do I say this? Because we successfully grabbed the ricin in London that came out of this camp. /shrug you decide, seems plausible to me. So maybe there's something else going on there that we don't know about? Maybe we had a CIA agent in place (and we couldn't contact safely to remove) that Bush really didn't feel wasting in an airstrike while trying to get Zarqawi. Why do I say this? Because we successfully grabbed the ricin in London that came out of this camp. /shrug you decide, seems plausible to me. Heh, earlier you characterize my suggestion that ex-Iraqi army may be assisting in the insurgency as a "big if" and another assessment as "James Bondish," and you hit us with this. Sure, it could be the case, but then why would the military keep giving the President new plans of attack?
Sucks for the 700+ people who have died from the asshole, but this is war and all the more reason to stay the course. Stay the course by not killing terrorists in their holes because it might hurt political support? No thanks.
But my point is, there's shit going on in this war, as there always is, that we have no fucking clue about and we need to give the people who do know a little more benefit of the doubt, which is sorely lacking in this world we live in now. You're right in that there's a lot we don't know about, and there's a lot we shouldn't know about. The problem is that this explanation excuses anything we might object to. You blame Clinton for Kim Jong Il's nukes, for instance. But maybe he knew something we didn't, and you are just being an armchair quarterback! Hell, maybe now Bush knows that secret, and that's why he's done relatively little about NK. But as soon as you start just giving the benefit of the doubt, you let things slide. You suddenly don't mind that the Geneva Conventions aren't being followed in some cases. Then you don't mind that some prisoners are just disappearing, and having who knows what done to them. And hell, maybe those people have it coming to them and deserve whatever they get, but the question is how close to home do you let this stuff get before you decide to ask some questions? For instance, if the administration is indeed suppressing (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-scheer19oct19,1,6762967.column?coll=la-util-op-ed) a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election because it proves embarrassing to Bush somehow, will you still give him the benefit of the doubt? At some point, we have to decide that the leadership isn't being candid with us for reasons other than national security, and we have to hold the leadership accountable.

New information worth considering (if true).

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm

Wow.... now that makes sense to me. I think the Russians have some 'splaining to do......

The article seemed to suggest that they wanted to cover up the presence of Russian manufactured arms in Iraq. Which I guess is something the Russians would want to cover up, but Syria? Lebanon? I suspect the Russians will simply deny it all (perhaps rightfully, we don't know), but it's quite a twist.

Why is it a Presidential fuck up

Not enough troops....

Is Russia providing arms to anyone worse than the US defense contractors providing top of the line arms to Israel? I suppose some could see a difference but only from a "we are right, they are wrong... period, and thats all you need to know" perspective. Israel, IMO are terrorists as well from an islamic perspective.

Seems like a very fanciful explanation, which, not surprisingly, shifts blame from Bush's administration to anyone they can find. This time the wheel stopped on Russia. If there were caravans of trucks going back and forth from iraq to syria, don't you suppose it would have been front page news? We have a million and one ways to see what is going on there. I also like the last part of the story where it speculates that the Russians may also know what happened to the WoMD. Seems to be a nice catch all. I wonder what other failures of Bush he pile into that bag?

Phelonius

btw, the Washington Times isnt a real newspaper. It is a conservative spin machine owned by Rev. Moon (yes of the Moonies)
Spinsanity, one of very few unbiased and completly neutral voices in american political discourse regularly features articles propulgated by Wash Times as blatent spin with news not coming from legitimate sources but from party strategists.

That's why I said *if true*. These days I don't trust *any* news organization.

*added*

BTW, this should be something that could be investigated by less partisan organizations. I will be curious to find out if anything comes of it.

As far as a fanciful explanation goes, I think it is entirely plausible. If *I* were the Russians, that is exactly what I would have done if I was sure the US was going to attack. Cover my tracks as much as possible.

The difference between the US selling arms to Israel and what the Russians were doing is that selling them to Iraq while it was under sanctions was blatantly illegal. There is nothing outlawing the sale of arms to Israel from a legal standpoint.

Personally I think all arms sales to the middle east should be stopped by all parties. That includes sales to Israel as well as the arab countries. Of course, that will never happen.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847

oops!

Seems like a very fanciful explanation

How fanciful is it to suggest that looters organized a 100 truck convoy to get 377 tons of weapons out of there unseen by our airpower, our ground forces, and our satelites?

Let's say this one more time:

There has been absolutely no proof put forward that these weapons were still at the site at the time the Coalition took control of the area. On the contrary, even the UN is backpedaling(you know, in addition to everyone else that was there saying they never saw the munitions) to say that the materials could have been taken out any time after January 3rd because the second inspection of the site only looked at the locks and not the contents.


The UN, the NYT, CBS. Good God, man, how buried is you head.

Actually the question is how far your head is buried.

CBS has been shown to be blatantly anti-Bush already, or have you forgotten the national guard fiasco already?

The NYT is less of a "real" newspaper than Lleauaric claims the Post is. They've already thrown in for Kerry, and not on the editorial page.

The UN wants Bush gone, for obvious reasons, and can't keep their story straight regardless.

This story wasn't meant to stand the test of time(because it can't, really)..it was meant to come out 2 days before the election to hurt Bush as badly as possible. This is something that you really need to catch onto and should be angry about....these guys are trying to meddle in our electoral process and that's extremely dangerous.

Crist0,
One more time....this story developed when the Iraqi government reported the missing explosives on Oct 10. Convince me that the NYT, the UN, or CBS has *any* sway over the Iraqi government and I will happily concede your point. Until then, these organization were only passing along what the Iraqis told them. None of them created this story.

L2, I saw that video, been waiting for confirmation from the experts they sent the video before posting it. It is interesting.

Fil

The story developed when the UN leaked it to CBS/LA Times/NYT.


FYI, there are now released surveilance pictures showing tractor trailers at the site on March 17th.

The NYT is less of a "real" newspaper than Lleauaric claims the Post is.
L2 mentioned the Washington Times, not the Post. Different outfits. And as L2 pointed out, it's ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847) that is furnishing the current round of evidence. As for tractor trailers being at the site, that doesn't mean much until those pictures show us that they're being loaded with the missing materials.

The story developed when the UN leaked it to CBS/LA Times/NYT.


FYI, there are now released surveilance pictures showing tractor trailers at the site on March 17th.
And for those who haven't been paying attention.... that was before we were there.....

And as L2 pointed out, it's ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847) that is furnishing the current round of evidence.

ABC and Fox, and they've both come forth to say that it was listed as 3 tons instead of 377, not to mention the fact that they don't bring forward any evidence whatsoever that the materials were there at the time we took control.

Again, I am going to point out the photos of trucks at the facility on March 17th coupled with the UN inspectors themselves saying they never looked at the materials after January 3rd...

I'll even let it go about the magical invisible 100 truck convoy that would be required to have "looted" almost 400 tons of munitions...

*ring* *ring*

It's for you, reality calling.

not to mention the fact that they don't bring forward any evidence whatsoever that the materials were there at the time we took control.
Just a guess, but you didn't actually click that ABC link, did you?

Fil

I'll even let it go about the magical invisible 100 truck convoy that would be required to have "looted" almost 400 tons of munitions.. The string of events seems to be that US forces passed through, left the facility unsecured, and looters began to bleed the weapons from the place. US forces may have at one time been schedualed to guard the facility but because of unforseen events and difficulties, did not have the availible man power to secure the base.

Had Rumsfeld and Wolfawitz listened to people who told them more people would be needed, or alternatively not made the incredible blunder of dismantling the Iraqi army, or if Melvin had gone straight to the police, all of this could have been avoided.

Mistake after mistake after mistake in the planning of this operation.
To use a football analogy, you have All Stars on the field, but a fool calling the plays and only 10 men in the game.

Ok, had to make my last post short so I could catch Zogby on The Daily Show.

Again, I am going to point out the photos of trucks at the facility on March 17th http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al_qa_qaa-imagery4.htm

In case you also don't click on this link, let me copy the really relevant part.

However, a comparison of features in the DoD-released imagery with available commercial satellite imagery, combined with the use of an IAEA map showing the location of bunkers used to store the HMX explosives, reveals that the trucks pictured on the DoD image are not at any of the nine bunkers indentified by the IAEA as containing the missing explosive stockpiles. Even without that analysis, I'm amazed that you think it would take a terrorist 100 trucks ( it wouldn't take that many ) but the Iraqi government could move them all with just one.

not to mention the fact that they don't bring forward any evidence whatsoever that the materials were there at the time we took control. As I alluded before, Crist0 obviously didn't click the link he quoted, since I don't think he could have missed the big blue headline:

Video Suggests Explosives Disappeared After U.S. Took Control

Also, I don't have this 100% verified yet, but it seems David Kay ( the weapons inspector ) confirmed that the ABC video ( that Crist0 didn't look at ) from April 18th was HMX and that was an IAEA seal the soldiers are cutting through.

ABC and Fox, and they've both come forth to say that it was listed as 3 tons instead of 377

I am going to once again point out that that is bullshit. There was a possibility that most of the RDX wasn't there. It was fairly certain that the HMX and PETN was undisturbed.

The story developed when the UN leaked it to CBS/LA Times/NYT. NYT story was on the 25th. They clearly state in the story they had been asking the administration questions about the issue for the past week. So let's say NYT knew about on the 18th. The IAEA briefed the Security Council on the 15th. In case you didn't know, there are 15 autonomous nations that sit on the Security Council. Things are generally not discussed in secret in front of the entire council and it would be fairly stupid to imagine that something discussed in front of the entire council would remain secret. In short, nothing was "leaked", it was common knowledge by that time that was reported.

As I have said before, I started on this thread to combat the "evil liberal media is out to get us". While I am a Kerry supporter, I have never come this board urging anyone to vote for Kerry and very rarely have I outright bashed Bush, even those times was usually just incidental to disproving some of the crap that gets tossed around here. And I really don't care that much about these missing explosives, in and of themselves. I think it would be a shame if that is the sole reason someone votes for Kerry, because he has lots of great qualities. But if I were a Bush supporter, I would have a real hard time condoning the way he, his campaign, and his administration has handled this whole mess ( pushing a single, suspicious DoD satellite photograph is especially sad ), much less voting for him.


addendum: just got sent the transcript from the Kay interview, so ignore that "not 100% verified" stuff

BROWN: I don't know how better to do this than to show you some pictures, have you explain to me what they are or are not, OK? First, I'll just call it the seal and tell me if this is an IAEA seal on that bunker at that munitions dump.

KAY: Aaron, as about as certain as I can be looking at a picture, not physically holding it, which obviously I would have preferred to have been there, that's an IAEA seal. I've never seen anything else in Iraq in about 15 years of being in Iraq and around Iraq that was other than an IAEA seal of that shape.

BROWN: And was there anything else at the facility that would have been under IAEA seal?

KAY: Absolutely nothing. It was he HMX, RDX, the two high explosives.

BROWN: OK. Now, I want to take a look at the barrels here for a second and you can tell me what they tell you. They obviously to us just show us a bunch of barrels. You'll see it somewhat differently.

KAY: Well, it's interesting. There were three foreign suppliers to Iraq of this explosive in the 1980s. One of them used barrels like this and inside the barrel is a bag. HMX is in powdered form because you actually use it to shape a spherical lens that is used to create the triggering device for nuclear weapons.

And, particularly on the videotape, which is actually better than the still photos, as the soldier dips into it that's either HMX or RDX. I don't know of anything else in al Qa Qaa that was in that form.

BROWN: Let me ask you then, David, the question I asked Jamie. In regard to the dispute about whether that stuff was there when the Americans arrived, is it game, set, match? Is that part of the argument now over?

KAY: Well, at least with regard to this one bunker and the film shows one seal, one bunker, one group of soldiers going through and there were others there that were sealed, with this one, I think it is game, set and match.

There was HMX, RDX in there. The seal was broken and quite frankly to me the most frightening thing is not only is the seal broken and the lock broken but the soldiers left after opening it up. I mean to rephrase the so-called (UNINTELLIGIBLE) rule if you open an arms bunker, you own it. You have to provide security.

BROWN: That raises a number of questions. Let me throw out one. It suggests that maybe they just didn't know what they had.

KAY: I think quite likely they didn't know they had HMX, which speaks to the lack of intelligence given troops moving through that area but they certainly knew they had explosives.

And to put this in context, I think it's important this loss of 360 tons but Iraq is awash with tens of thousands of tons of explosives right now in the hands of insurgents because we did not provide the security when we took over the country.

BROWN: Could you -- I'm trying to stay out of the realm of politics.

KAY: So am I. BROWN: I'm not sure you can necessarily. I know. It's a little tricky here but is there any reason not to have anticipated the fact that there would be bunkers like this, explosives like this and a need to secure them?

KAY: Absolutely not. For example, al Qa Qaa was a site of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) super gun project. It was a team of mine that discovered the HMX originally in 1991. That was one of the most well documented explosive sites in all of Iraq. The other 80 or so major ammunition storage points were also well documented.

Iraq had, and it's a frightening number, two-thirds of the total conventional explosives that the U.S. has in its entire inventory. The country was an armed camp. Fil

Btw, Crist0....

Phone call for you.

Fil

They've already thrown in for Kerry, and not on the editorial page.

Along with about 130 other newspapers in the country and counting.

Hell, long as I'm being completely partisan:

Along with about 130 other newspapers in the country and counting.
Including the Orlando Sentinel, who haven't endorsed a Democrat since Johnson.

And the Tampa Tribune wouldn't endorse Kerry, but they did write a well thought out piece: Why We Cannot Endorse President Bush for Re-Election (http://tampatrib.com/opinion/MGBU3UEHF0E.html)

Fil