<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>so the only thing that Kerry and co are really saying is - the military screwed up because they couldn't protect 380tons of explosives from looters, and their commanders were clueless because they were concentrating on taking Bagdad and not securing explosives.<br><p><hr></blockquote><p>and that . . .that is certainly enough!<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

We knew exactly what was there up to the invasion because the IAEA told us, documented it and sealed it. If we didn't secure the facility why wasn't it destroyed? We're debating about dates, but the reality is that it was secure under international inspectors (or at least the bulk of it), David Kay has confirmed this, and now its in the hands of enemies due to negligence in the planning of our war.<br><br>The meme today on the news programs is that the whole issue is a "non-story". It's just a political hack job to attack Bush. Please repeat that over and over, it's a "non-story", on the news of the next Baghdad police station or roadside ambush, Israeli cafe or Madrid train station blowing up. If shopping malls and airports in LA or Paris or London are bombed, is this still a non-story? 760,000 lbs. of high-grade explosives that is not in our control cannot be eliminated with the ease of a sound bite or disingenuous Drudge headlines. <br><br>Screw the political consequences attributed to this, the concern is over the security and safety of our troops, our allies, and our country. It took the NYT to tell the country of this major threat to our security when it should have been the president, who has told that things are safer now here and abroad.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>We knew exactly what was there up to the invasion because the IAEA told us, documented it and sealed it. If we didn't secure the facility why wasn't it destroyed? We're debating about dates, but the reality is that it was secure under international inspectors (or at least the bulk of it), David Kay has confirmed this, and now its in the hands of enemies due to negligence in the planning of our war.<p><hr></blockquote><p>This is just simply false.<br>In January the HEs were inventoried and sealed. <br>("Sealed" by the way means the doors were closed and a wire is looped through doors. The wire is then secured with an IAEA "seal" not much unlike a similar seal you'd see on your gas or electric meter outside your home to prevent tampering.) - Do you dispute this?<br><br>Note: I'm getting my dates below from press reports so since I can't 100% confirm them since I wasn't personally on the IAEA inspection team or the US invasion force one could assume the date could be somewhat inaccurate.<br><br>On March 15th the IAEA inspectors visit the site for THE LAST TIME. - Do you dispute this?<br><br>On the March 15th date ONLY THE SEALS WERE INSPECTED. - Do you dispute this?<br><br>On that March 15th date the IAEA was unable to examine the stockpile or the seals of the RDX (only the HMX and PETN seals were examined). - Do you dispute this?<br><br>So, all the IAEA and David Kay could really speak to is that on March 15th IAEA seals were in place on 195 tons of HMX and 6 tons of PETN.<br><br>March 20, 2003 - Incursion into Iraq begins in ernest.<br><br>On April 4th 2003, the 3rd Infantry Division occupy and search the al Qaqaa site. The extent and results of that search are currently unknown but reports from CBS suggest that explosive powder was found is mass quantity and we know that a common way to store these three explosives is in powder form.<br><br>On April 10th the 101st Airborne occupy the site for about 24 hours. Reports conflit on the extent of the search done.<br><br>As far as I can tell that's what we know.<br><br>What's really interesting is how concerned everyone is over this stuff and how dangerous it is and how terrorists would love to get their hands on some and how it apparently should have been the most guarded site in Iraq as soon as possible yet Saddam wasn't a threat and we shuld have never invaded in the first place. Just sounds wierd to me.<br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .

Sean - enough for what?<br><br>Gary - NYT to tell the country of a major threat? - they're 18 months late, NBC already told the country about this cache - this is just an emotional knee jerk story to attempt to overthrow the current administration, that is their agenda, and as obvious as getting a flashing neon sign over their offices declaring as much. This stuff is missing, and it was either the armed forces high command or the soldiers in the field who (in your opinion) are to blame for that. But the story doesn't run to that, it says "Bush loses 350 tons of explosives" - unless they were at his ranch in Crawford, he wasn't personally guarding the stuff - see this for the political scaremongering that it is.<br><br>And here's some surprising news for you - The terrorists have explosives already, lots of them, sure 350 tons is a nice to have extra cache (assuming they're the ones with them - remember no proof where these explosives went). The security of our troops, our allies and our country has been under threat for the last 13+ years, nice of you to get your head out of the sand and finally smell the roses. Losing 350 tons of explosives doesn't make the world a more dangerous place, and neither will finding said 350 tons a less dangerous place. The world is a dangerous place because these people want to kill you! They will use anything they have at hand to complete that mission, they sure as heck don't NEED this 350tons of explosive.<br><br>

"What's really interesting is how concerned everyone is over this stuff and how dangerous it is and how terrorists would love to get their hands on some and how it apparently should have been the most guarded site in Iraq as soon as possible"<br><br>That's why the international inspectors were there, they had the stuff, whatever the exact quanties are, out of Saddam's hands. That why they were there, and it seems they were doing their job and giving us info on exactly what what being done. <br><br>There are stories about known sites containing radioactive materials that were not guarded and looted also. That makes no sense at all not to have planned for these things.<br><br>

enough to use this story against dubya. even if the explosives were missing before we arrived, why is this just now coming to light? and, if the explosives were looted after we arrived, then this is near the highest level of incompetence i could imagine during a war. it's not good in any light.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

Why did Iraq have stuff designed to detonate nuclear bombs in the first place? Why wasn't this stuff destroyed long ago?<br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .

No, it just doesn't look good under a blue light.<br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .

"And here's some surprising news for you... ", please don't give me that condesending nonsense. 9/11 affected all Americans, not just Bush supporters, so please don't lay this b/s that I'm being naive about threats to our country. Obviously I am aware of threats to our national security, that's the very reason I began this thread. I began by saying that the incompetence of this administration's planning and execution of military action in Iraq has created an even more unsafe environment for our troops and homeland security. Nothing in the course of this discussion has changed my point of view. One point of disagreement, I believe 380 tons or 380 lbs or 1 lb of high grade explosives in the hands of radical Islamic terrorists absolutely changes the equation on our level of security.<br><br><br><br>

"Why did Iraq have stuff designed to detonate nuclear bombs in the first place? Why wasn't this stuff destroyed long ago?" <br><br>You've read the same things I have that these were classified dual-use conventional weapons. And yes, they should have been destroyed long ago. Do you have an answer for that question, I don't know what the IAEA was suppose to do with 'conventional' stuff. <br><br>