That is simply untrue. HMX was the “most special” high explosive in Iraq. And we are talking about all they had. How many other “conventional” weapons was the IAEA tracking?
In comparison with the other arms and munitions looted in Iraq, HMX was extraordinary. And the RDX is non-trivial.
Just a thought, perhaps off the main beam of the thread…
We are more or less assuming that the motivations of (whoever took the stuff) is “political” in nature. Perhaps their motive was entirely commerical? How valuable is this stuff on the “black market”? Anyone know?
Hell, we’re rich: maybe we can buy it back for chump change, a couple billion, tops.
**No, it doesn’t bother me that a liberal Republican has been pulled out of circulation. If you can’t keep them in line, remove the line. It WOULD bother me if this guy didn’t have a background in the CIA. Political appointments tend to suffer from “appeasement syndrome” so at least this person has some credentials. If you want to debate them knock yourself out. **
** I would disagree that there isn’t an intelligence gap. 9/11 suggests a rather large one
What would lead you to believe the US Army wasn’t aware of the site? It was one of many sites that required securing. It was announced at the beginning of the war that various sites were raided. The looting was all over the news. There weren’t enough soldiers on the planet to secure every location on day one.
There is nothing snide about my remarks. Despite the challenge the US Army faced they still secured 99.91% of the explosives. The intelligence gap was not the location of the sites in question, it was the knowledge of the groups most likely to oppose US troops. It’s far easier to search for a group of terrorists than it is to post a soldier on every corner.
The post-Cold War spend-down of our military assets has left the United States more vulnerable to attack. Senator Kerry’s support for security measures is a matter of record. It’s easy to step up and demonize your opponent by promising what you are going to do in the future. It’s a lot harder to make the same claim based on what you’ve actually done in the past. **
I don’t know that Kerry’s pushing of this issue is going to bring him much of an advantage. I would suspect there are a number of people who are more likely to vote for Bush if the war is going bad regardless of whether he was the one to start it. Bush equals war period and this issue brings it to the fore. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush got more votes for out of this in the end.
I’m surprised to see you criticize President Bush like this. But you are absolutely right.
Yeah, but that just removes the political motivations by a step or two. The end user is the source of concern.
We all understand that this explosive was gone from the complex before Baghdad fell, right? Possibly it’s been gone for several years as Iraq claimed to be taking some for use in concrete making related demolition.
We understand that this was reported on April 9, before Baghdad fell by an NBC embed with the 101st Cavalry, picked up by CNN, CBS, and the NYT, right?
We all also understand that CBS, the NYT, Cnn and et al decided to ignore their own archives and falsely report that this stuff had gone missing under Bush’s watch.
Dan Rather reported yesterday on the news that this story was being worked on jointly with the NYT and was scheduled to be released this coming Sunday on 60 minutes, but it was decided that the story “Would not hold,” so the NYT broke it.
It seems to me that this is a pretty clear case of the fourth estate ignoring it’s responsibilities to report the truth, and instead fabricating a story in an attempt to influence the election.
I’ve never been one to be a big crybaby about the “liberal media,” but goddamn if this isn’t the most partisan sack of crap I’ve ever seen. The Bush National Guard story is broken what? Five times in the last year, but the Swiftvets can’t get on TV to save their lives except to be summarily condemned. Meanwhile Kitty Kelly gets the grand tour. The Arnold Schwarzennegger rape stories get broken the day before the California election. CBS runs with forged documents from a source that makes Reeder look good.
Now they break this story contradicted by their own archives.
Some of you people still think this is an argument against Bush, or that Bush or the election is the issue here.
The real issue is the abuse and erosion of the fourth estate. That’s the real concern.
There is no impartial reporting source any more, anywhere.
Nobody is doing their level best to report the truth to us.
We all lose.
No. The IAEA checked on it and was keeping tabs on it early in 2003. The last time was on March 15th, where they reexamined some of their seals and found them to be intact.
No. The imbedded reporter said that they stopped by the facility for only 24 hours, and no extensive search of the facility or securing of the facility was in their mission. They didn’t find any explosives of this type because they weren’t looking for them.
No. The Iraqi interim government reported that the stuff has gone missing under Bush’s watch and CBS, the NYT, Cnn and et al have been reporting that.
Get the facts straight, or at least not completely twisted.
Nice try but Kerry’s entire “I’m a Veteran” campaign was specifically designed to cover his poor voting record. But if you want to list all the weapons programs and CIA budgets he voted against, go for it.
Not at all. That explanation has been blown away by subsequent, and more authoritative reports from such places as the pentagon.
Do we all understand that this material was locked up by the IAEA because of ithe possibility that it could be used to construct triggering devices for nuclear weapons?
Do we all understand that one of the priorities in the invasion of Iraq was to secure such WMD related material?
Do we all understand that the Iraq survey group, whose job it was to root out Saddam’s WMD’s and WMD related programs was not aware until this month that material that could be used to trigger nuclear devices was missing from from the place were it was supposed to be?
Do we all see what a whopping huge hole that blows in the credibility of the Survey group?
They went nuts over a standard culture of botulism, a couple of centrifuge parts, a hydrogen production traler, and a notebook with a drawing of a 5 nozzled rocket on it, but failed to check to see if stuff that’s actually used to build atom bombs was even locked up where it was supposed to be?
It boggles the mind!
Wrong.
Have you paid any attention to this story at all? Have you even read this thread?
You seem to be quite behind on breaking developments.
I’ll take your word for that. That’s well before April 9.
Bullshit. I heard this guy Dana ____ being interviewed yesterday. He said he walked up and down this, and looked all around and into many of the various. He didn’t see any of the seals nor any of the explosives and he reported at that time that the explosives were not there. I heard him say this. I heard him say that it was picked up by CBS, and the NYT times that the explosives weren’t there. ON APRIL 9. I heard this with my own ears, straight from the horse’s mouth.
No they did not. Give me a firsthand cite that says so. The Iraqi government said it was gone. They didn’t say when it went.
Brains are for thinking, not for use as chewtoys. Think!
What’s the number? 384 tons? Almost three quarters of a million pounds. Think of the volume we are talking about.
You’re positing that multiple crews with Semi trucks just went in with heavy equiptment and loaded this stuff up and hauled it away for like 6 weeks without anybody noticing.
According to the embed yesterday this is not a well-travelled road. There are checkpoints.
Do you think they smuggled this stuff out under their shirts?
Give me one demonstrating that this stuff was there on April 9th 2003 and you have a story.
Failing that you have a lie created to influence the election. A shallow lie easily contradicted by the facts.
God, you’re desperate.
The stuff was definitely there three weeks before the invasion. After the invasion there was no attempt to either search or secure the area. A few GI’s wndering around aimlessly to kill some time != a search.
Three weeks is not enough time for looters to have liberated and transported that much explosive.
All signs point to this stuff getting boosted after the invasion. cn it be proven absolutely? No, but it’s the mostly likely scenario.
First, put down the kool-aid.
Take Dick Cheney’s favorite website, and listen to John McCain:
Then read the rest of page. Feel free to compare and contrast John Kerry’s record with President Bush’s pre-9/11 emphasis on a national missile defense shield.
Let’s get it straight.
According to CBS, this complex was thoroughly searched on April 4, 2003 by the 3rd ID.
Here’s the actual timeline of what happened:
Pre-2003: IAEA inspectors tag and seal 377 tons of explosives.
March 8, 2003: IAEA inspectors visit the site the last time. They note that they checked on some of the explosives, but not all of them.
April 3, 2003: The 3rd ID rolls into the complex. They do a pretty good, but not completely thorough search, and find no explosives with UN seals on them (see above link for details of their search).
April 9, 2003: 101st Airborne relieves the 3rd ID. Embedded reporter Dana Lewis says 101st searched area, and no tagged explosives were found.
May 8, 2003: The 75th exploitation task force arrives, with the specific intent of securing these explosives. They do a thorough search of the facility, and the explosives are definitely gone.
Oct. 26: New York Times publishes a story a week before the election, describing the missing explosives in a way that leaves the impression that they have recently vanished. Also, a letter describing the explosive incident is sent to the NYT by the director of the IAEA, who’s appointment is being opposed by the Bush administration.
CBS news whines that they wanted to run the story as a ‘late hit’ just before the election, but lost control of it to the NYT.
Face it. The explosives were gone by May 8, 2003. The question is whether 18-28 tractor trailers full of explosives snuck into and out of U.S. occupied territory without anyone noticing during that month, or whether the explosives were removed before the war. Seeing as how in the two weeks before the war large convoys of trucks were seen moving into Syria, I know where I’d bet my money.
And also, if we’re going to blame anyone for these missing explosives, how about we blame the people that kept pushing for more time to let the inspectors work - time that Saddam may have used to spirit a lot of his weaponry out of the country, hide weapons caches for the insurgency, shelter money, etc?
All we know is that the shit was there right before the invasion, that no attempt was made to search or secure it immediately after the invasion and that now the shit is gone.
Any attempt to spin this as having occurred before the invasion is just wishful thinking.
Your point would be valid if there was a small number of sites to secure. But that was not the case. You are counting what wasn’t secured and ignoring what WAS secured. Capturing and destroying a majority of the sites is the walking definition of success, not the failure you are spinining it into.
No. That’s your girlfriend.
Some of it was there. We don’t know that it was all there. Your characterization of a "few GIs wandering around is a false one. We have the testimony and reports of the embeds who were there.
But four weeks is enough after the invasion? It was gone on May 8. If 3 weeks isn’t enough time before the invasion without US troops all over the place impeding you, how is four weeks afterwards enough time?
Three weeks is actually plenty of time to load up and move 40 or so tractor trailers in a preinvasion Iraq. The Roadway depot in Harrisburg does that in a morning.
All the knee-jerk left wing partisan signs say that. THis is like the National Guard documents. The wingnuts were defending these things after CBS gave up. This is a falsified story.
Look. To have a story here, to have a point, you need to demonstrate two facts.
THe explosives are gone. This is easy they’re gone. No problem
They were there after the invasion.
After the invasion is not “three weeks before the invasion.” In this case it is April 9, the fall of Baghdad and the 101 visit.
If you don’t have something that says they were there after the invasion, THAN YOU CANNOT ARGUE THAT THEY DISAPEARED UNDER BUSH’S WATCH.
To do so without this something is to commit a LIE.
This should be simple and elementary. Show me that they were there on April 9, or later and you win.
If you can’t, and you still assert that they disappeared under Bush’s watch, than you are lying.
What WAS secured was oil wells.
You have the burden of proof backwards, Scylal, it is you needs to demonstrate that that stuff was taken before April 9. Since No attempt was made to search or secure the area, the onus is on Bush to prove the looting was not on his watch. His watch is the shoddy one. His watch is the one unaccounted for.