Skip to comments.NBCNEWS: Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq -- At Least 18 Months Ago (SIREN)
Posted on 10/25/2004 7:11:50 PM PDT by Chicos_Bail_Bonds
click here to read article
Yup! I have 9 40-foot trucks with high explosives around the country waiting for rats to pull tricks. (snicker) THAT will get the SS to check me real quick. I will maintain my clearance and settle into a comfy life, thank you. They can check me immediately and I hope can take a joke? People have written books about assassinating Bush, so why not something in the other direction?
I love that ad!
OK, this means that Bush is going to drop the hammer on Tuesday. Ouch!!! Lockhart seems very nervous about this.
If Mik's words can be parsed in this way does this story contradict NYT? And no I'm not a troll, or else I've been trolling for 4 years. Just want to get this as right as the fonts.
According to Kerry in the first debate - we took the wrong course of action against the war on terror by diverting our efforts to an area without terrorists.
Then this story breaks out and Kerry says today that the weapons that were mishandled by a bad commander in chief and they could be used by terrorists to commit crimes abroad or at home.
Which is it.... There are no weapons and terrorists in Iraq - or - there are deadly weapons that can fall into the hands of terrorists and Bush should have protected those weapons?
I just keep praying that God will empower the electorate on 11/2/04 and this country will remain safe under solid and steadfast leadership. God help us all if this joker is elected.
'And no I'm not a troll, or else I've been trolling for 4 years.'
and a very SLOW troll, at that!!
ya, it is confusing as to which came first, but I think it is the way we want, that it was unguarded and gone before we got there....I guess we'll find out tomorrow.
all in all, I feel better than I did 4 hours ago...it seemed a little grim...
more at Drudge?
[In a fresh Page One story set for Tuesday on the matter, the TIMES once again omits any reference to troops not finding any explosives at the site when they arrived in April of 2003. Attempts to reach managing editor Jill Abramson late Monday were unsuccessful.]
"The U.S. Army was at the site one day after the liberation and the weapons were already gone," a top Republican blasted from Washington late Monday.
The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003 when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers.
Dem vp hopeful John Edwards blasted Bush for not securing the explosives: "It is reckless and irresponsible to fail to protect and safeguard one of the largest weapons sites in the country. And by either ignoring these mistakes or being clueless about them, George Bush has failed. He has failed as our commander in chief; he has failed as president."
A senior Bush official e-mailed DRUDGE late Monday: "Let me get this straight, are Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards now saying we did not go into Iraq soon enough? We should have invaded and liberated Iraq sooner?"
Top Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart fired back Monday night: "In a shameless attempt to cover up its failure to secure 380 tons of highly explosive material in Iraq, the White House is desperately flailing in an effort to escape blame. Instead of distorting John Kerrys words, the Bush campaign is now falsely and deliberately twisting the reports of journalists. It is the latest pathetic excuse from an administration that never admits a mistake, no matter how disastrous."
I heard O'Reiley say tonight speaking of October surprises that "they'd better not make something up, report something untrue or I'll be spending a lot of time setting the record straight". I'm wondering is he already knew the truth was coming out about Al QuaQaa? Hannity was the first to mention the NBC report this evening on H&C and said it would be in the news tuesday.
NY Times is a joke.
Would you take a look at my post 204 on this thread. I'd like your opinion. I think we may be getting way out on a limb here, based on he way Miklasewski structured his report. Let me know what you think
We can only confirm that the weapons weren't there when we looked for them.
I read the rest of the available information as saying that the UN can only confirm that weapons were there 3 months before we got there.
The weapons were not lost due to poor security by us - they were transported out of Iraq or dispersed around Iraq between the time that the UN got out and we got in.
The only logical places to go with this are that the UN wasn't going to do anything about these types of weapons so we had to invade, and we should have actually invaded earlier and with more of an element of surprise in the timing, rather than give UN inspectors time to leave. Of course, Kerry is not a man of logic and reason.
> March 20, 2003: When we invaded
> January 25, 2003: 18 months ago.
HAHA! The tables turn... of course if we hadn't paid so much respect to the "global test" we would have been in Iraq earlier.
In reality, we need *more* strength like Bush exhibited, not less.
Koolaid drinkers are in denial about Drudge story.
They're still referring to the NY Times story as a "nail in the coffin". LOL. Even without the NBC story, the NYTimes story was going nowhere. They just made it worse for themselves. Lockhart and the rest of these guys are a bunch of amateurs.
I understand your point, but if you read the transcript of Mik's story it can be parsed as saying that the 101 spent some time at al Qaqaa, found some stuff, moved on. It does not specifically say that they searched for and found no Cemtex, and concluded the Cemtex had been removed. I'm just not convinced, based on the NBC transcript, that this absolutely contradicts and discredits the NYT story in a way to make it irrelevant.
Just by what Drudge reported, I was under the impression that our forces arrived in Iraq, but did not arrive to secure the facility until April 10, 2003, over a month after fighting. They were not yet able to secure the facility due to the fact that they had to work their way to the area (this is what Drudge appears to be saying) and upon their arrival, the troops did not note the existence of the weapons that are missing. This would mean that they disappeared sometime during the initial stages of the invasion or before the fighting began when the U.N. was responsible for the security of the facility.
Did anyone else have the same analysis of the story?
"The U.S. Army was at the site one day after the liberation and the weapons were already gone," a top Republican blasted from Washington late Monday.
I had similar thoughts in post 211. These weapons were either removed to Syria and possibly Iran or were dispersed throughout the region sometime between the time the UN got out and we got in.
The fighting had not yet ended completely at this time. Drudge reads the story as saying the weapons were gone when the 101 got there. Miklasewki's actual report is not at all clear on that. I think, barring more info, the Dems can still claim that the 101 because it still had fighting to do could not secure the base, and the base was then looted. This would allow Dems to attack the planning for Iraq war as being insufficient in troop strength to secure the country. The results of which have led to deadly attacks on US troops by weapons produced from the unprotected explosives. I just think it's possible we're celebrating much too soon. We need to know what the 101 did at alQaqaa. What was it tasked to find? What did it find and how long did it secure the facility?
Would you believe a "top Dumocrat"? We need independent confirmation.
Please put this one in breaking news.
"The fighting had not yet ended completely at this time. Drudge reads the story as saying the weapons were gone when the 101 got there. Miklasewki's actual report is not at all clear on that. I think, barring more info, the Dems can still claim that the 101 because it still had fighting to do could not secure the base, and the base was then looted. This would allow Dems to attack the planning for Iraq war as being insufficient in troop strength to secure the country. The results of which have led to deadly attacks on US troops by weapons produced from the unprotected explosives. I just think it's possible we're celebrating much too soon. We need to know what the 101 did at alQaqaa. What was it tasked to find? What did it find and how long did it secure the facility?"
This is from Miklasewki's report:
"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..."
It's saying that when the troops arrived, the high explosives were already gone. That's exactly what Drudge et al is reporting.
|Wednesday, March 19 (Washington)||In an address to the nation from the Oval Office, President Bush announces orders have been given to begin Operation of Iraqi Freedom, and acknowledges the launch of missile attacks against "selected targets of military significance" in Iraq.|
|Monday, March 24|| The 3rd Infantry Division, along with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, move within 50 miles of Baghdad and engage Republican Guard divisions, including the Medina Division.
AH-64 Apache helicopters of the Army's 11th Aviation Regiment knock out four or five armored Iraqi vehicles outside Baghdad. Air Force B-52 bombers also hit Republican Guard positions and vehicles south of Baghdad.
|Monday, March 31|| After waiting several days 50 miles from the Iraqi capitol city, the Army's 3rd Infantry Division and Marine 1st Expeditionary Division finish dismantling of two Republican Guard divisions to the north. The Iraqi divisions were battered by U.S. air strikes and artillery barrages over several days.
U.S. soldiers fight Iraqi paramilitary soldiers outside Najaf, 90 miles south of Baghdad. One soldier from the 101st Airborne Division is killed.
|Wednesday, April 2|| From the southwest, the 3rd Infantry Division passes Karbala and moves north with M1 Abrams tanks and M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles toward Baghdad. The Marine 1st Expeditionary Force moves north beyond Kut and heads in the direction of Baghdad also. Both face minimal resistance, destroying what remains of the Iraq's Republican Guard Medina Division and Baghdad Division. Many Iraqi soldiers retreat back toward Baghdad, surrender to U.S. troops or desert.
Outside Karbala an Army UH-60 Black Hawk was lost. Six soldiers are killed, and a Navy airman is missing.
|Wednesday, April 9||With U.S. military forces controlling most of Baghdad and few signs that Saddam Hussein's Baath government still functions, thousands of Iraqis celebrate their liberation. A tall metal statue of Hussein is pulled off its cement foundation by Iraqis with the help of U.S. Marines.|
|Thursday, April 10|| Iraqi forces leave the northern city of Kirkuk after bombings from U.S. warplanes. Kurdish opposition forces move into the city, along with some U.S. Special Forces troops. Iraqi soldiers also are said to be surrendering to U.S. and Kurdish ground forces in Mosul.
Looting and civil disorder is occurring cities across the country, including Baghdad, Basra and Kirkut.
As you can see, the earliest we would have been 25 miles south of Bagdad would be March 31 or April 1. Fighting continued to Bagdad until April 9.
What's the chance of a small band of looters making off with 40 semi-truck trailers full of explosives with the troops all around between April 1 and April 10? Nil.
I am just noting what NBC claims it saw when their imbeds arrived with the 101st in April. NRO Kerry Spot reports on this:
It seems as if NBC said that there were none of the particular weapons in question when they arrived.
The fighting had not ended but the important high explosives that the NY Times is bitching about were not there .... the NT Times "news" articles are the equivalent to grade F meat ... not fit for human consumption
You're probably right, but I spent 8 years listening to Clinton parse the English language, and maybe that affects the way I read Mik's report. It just confuses me that he doesn't say the Cemtex was gone when the 101 arrived. He says they didn't find it, and that they were at al QaQaa temporarily. He then jumps to the Iraqis saying it was looted due to poor security. Like I said ten posts ago, it's double talk.
Anyone noticed that Drudge has since taken the siren down? Is he now going to backpeddle? Hope not!!!
Our troops were looking for HMX and RDX but didn't find any.
So I hope Bush or one of his people comes out and says "Nice to see Sen. Kerry agrees these are weapons that had to be gotten control of, and it's obvious now that Saddam was sending such weapons outside his country...making him a backer of terrorism...as we've been saying all along."
Usually he only leaves it up for a while when the story first comes out.
Why is the U.N. nuclear agency suddenly warning now that insurgents in Iraq may have obtained nearly 400 tons of missing explosives -- in early 2003?
NBCNEWS Jim Miklaszewski quoted one official: "Recent disagreements between the administration and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency makes this announcement appear highly political."
The IAEA is attempting the old HansBlix manuever on Bush, but facts are stubborn things.
This is blowing up ALL OVER the UN, Kerry, and the Slimes.
Yippee! I believe the UN, the terrorists and LURCH all made a pact with the devil to try and bring down our wonderful president! BUT THEIR PHONEY BOGUS RATHERGATES AND EXPLOSIVEGATES ARE NOT GOING TO WORK THIS TIME!
If it feels good do it?
This is the other corollary. I always do it but only sometimes does it feel good. The right thing I mean. That is the one I was referring to.
Sent to: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
How do you justify running such a poorly researched story?
The explosives were evacuated before the war, according to recent reports. Our intelligence learned that Iraqi generals reported back to Saddam before the war All evacuated. They may have been trucked to Syria or the Bekka Valley in Lebanon. The explosives were part of Saddams nuclear weapons program, a.k.a. WMD.
Biochem weapons were probably also trucked to Syria. Syria has used chemical weapons in Sudan. Upon arrival, our forces located al-Qaqaa storage site and found no WMD where they had been suspected.
To date, 250,000 tons of weapons and explosives have been destroyed, and another 167,000 tons are under guard preliminary to destruction. Your 380 tons is less than one-tenth of one percent of these munitions destroyed or in the process of destruction.
The New York Times is embarrassed again.
D. Oesy, NYC