Al Qaqaa

Posted by: garyW

Al Qaqaa - 10/24/04 11:37 PM

link<br><br>International inspectors had Al Qaqaa ammunition depot under lock and key. We invade Iraq and allow 380 tons of high grade explosives from that depot to be looted. <br><br>These are not WMD. These are conventional explosives used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons.This is what is used almost daily to kill our troops and slaughter Iraqi security, with no end in sight. This is what is being used to blow up pipelines. That's over 700,000 lbs! 1lb will bring down an airliner. <br><br>The NYT story indicates that the DOD knew about this for over a year, Bremer knew and delayed action, that Bush's incompetence is here displayed front and center.<br><br>"After the invasion, when widespread looting began in Iraq, the international weapons experts grew concerned that the Qaqaa stockpile could fall into unfriendly hands. In May, an internal I.A.E.A. memorandum warned that terrorists might be helping "themselves to the greatest explosives bonanza in history."<br><br>"Bush administration would not allow the agency back into the country to verify the status of the stockpile"<br><br>We're safer now on the homeland? Our troops are safer now? <br>This story will be huge and someone in this administration needs to take responsibility. <br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/24/04 11:42 PM

Hey, c'mon now. You can't expect them to secure everything. It's "hard work", you know! <br><br>The story will be huge? Yes, it certainly should be, but I'd swear I saw a reuters story on that during the middle of last week and just now the Times runs it? I don't know.<br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 12:00 AM

If that's the case, obviously the media was more concerned with Teresa's 'real job' comment than a blunder of catastophic proportions that's going to kill thousands, maim thousands, keep us at war longer and make security ever more diffiicult in Iraq and here at home. Yeah, let's argue about how Teresa offended you. <br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 06:57 AM

I must have missed it in the story. Exactly when did the stockpile go missing?<br><br>I mean what was the last date the "International inspectors" could confirm the presence of this material in that location?<br><br>Who was physically guarding this facility up until the time that US forces could have possibly arrived there to take over the security?<br><br><br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 11:08 AM

From the New York Times it sounds like stuff has been stolen during the time in which Amercian forces controlled the region. Even up until Sunday there may have been looting. It takes a long time to steal that much tonnage.<br><br>The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year.<br><br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 11:52 AM

Well, that's a pretty poorly sourced and written paragraph. (on the NYT's part, I didn't see it clarified anywhere else in the text.)<br><br>"The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control"<br>According to who? Or is this a NYT opinion?<br><br>"still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday"<br>What are they looting?<br><br>"United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years"<br>So, when was the last time these inspectors were in the facility and did a physical inventory?<br><br>"but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year."<br>All this seems to say (although it's so poorly written there could be multiple intrepretations) is that before the invasion they were there and after the invasion they were not. But again, no time context so we don't know if there was any lag between the last confirmed inspection and the time at which the US could have guarded the facility.<br><br><br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 11:59 AM

Since it sounds like the looters just cleared out on Sunday the properly referenced article will be forthcoming. Right now they are in "news at six" mode.<br><br>The answers to all your other questions are in the article here.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: G4Dualie

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 12:41 PM

<br><br>George Bush stated he is the only man who can keep this country safe from terrorism did he not? He said that as long as he is president he will not allow another 911 on his watch did he not? Those aren't the lies I'm referring to in the subject line but after reading the quote which is an excerpt from his State of the Union address I would say he failed us, he's failed the world, if this material is in fact in the hands of our enemies. <br><br>I don't know what to make of this latest incident in which 380 tons of high explosives have gone missing on his watch. Unless this material is accounted for, then I believe Mr. Bush has now armed potential terrorists and rogue nations with the material to advance their cause to do great harm in the middle east and perhaps here in america. <br><br>As was discovered, less than a pound of this explosive material was used to bring down Pan Am Flight 103, killing 270 people in all. Do you realize how many bombs could be made from 380 tons of this material, which by the way goes undetected by metal detectors and x-ray machines? One ton is enough, theoretically speaking, to bring down 2000 planes! <br><br>Do you realize how easy it is to make a bomb from this stuff? Any third grader with flour and water and newspaper could make a bomb that could be carried on your person and go undetected by any metal detector! Like Bushhole said, he has to be right every time and the terrorists only have to be right once to wreak havoc. With one ton of this stuff they could have 2000 chances to breach our borders! <br><br>And as was stated in an earlier post, this material was smuggled off the property used to store these explosives in what had to be large trucks. It's been stated that to move a pile of material of this magnitude would require 40 large trucks carrying 11 tons, or perhaps it was 75 smaller trucks carrying 5 tons each. Either way, how does a logistical process of that size go undetected by the CIA, the military, the State Department, or even by satellite? <br><br>I don't buy the notion expressed by a senior administration official, we were too busy fighting a war to notice. The war was over, according to George Bush six weeks after it started and here we are more than a year later discovering the explosives have gone missing? <br><br>This story needs to take center stage. It fly's in the face of everything the white house has told us about making the world a safer place. <br><br>George Bush you have to go! Your priorities are all screwed up. You don't know what's best for this country, nor can you protect us from further harm, and it's by the grace of god we haven't been attacked again since September 2001, for which you have taken the credit all too often. Being president is hard work, Mr. Bush and it's apparent to me, you're not up to the task.<br><br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 12:59 PM

Well, I went back and re-read the thing with a clearer head than this morning. This series stuck out...<br><br>"But apparently, little was done. A senior Bush administration official said that during the initial race to Baghdad, American forces "went through the bunkers, but saw no materials bearing the I.A.E.A. seal." It is unclear whether troops ever returned.<br><br>By late 2003, diplomats said, arms agency experts had obtained commercial satellite photos of Al Qaqaa showing that two of roughly 10 bunkers that contained HMX appeared to have been leveled by titanic blasts, apparently during the war. They presumed some of the HMX had exploded, but that is unclear.<br><br>Other HMX bunkers were untouched. Some were damaged but not devastated. 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."<br><br>So, we bombed the bunkers, inspected the bunkers and more than likely the materal was moved out of the bunkers and available for looting before we arrived at the site. This is what I gather from the article.<br><br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 01:33 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>So, we bombed the bunkers, inspected the bunkers and more than likely the material was moved out of the bunkers and available for looting before we arrived at the site. This is what I gather from the article. <p><hr></blockquote><p> So 380 tons of high explosives was laying about in the fields near Al Qaqaa while we went in and inspected the buildings and found them empty? This seems like an improbable explanation. I've unloaded molasses saturated bags of horse food which should be generally the density of high explosives. We were filling a standard freight car half way up with fifteen tons. Even if you filled them to the brim this would still be 13 freight cars worth of material in which to "lightly camouflage" in the nearby fields. The infantry would have seen something that would indicate the movement of this much tonnage. Even if 20 percent was destroyed in the bombing (2 of 10) it is just too much to hide.<br><br>No, it sounds like it was there. We checked it out and then we did not have the manpower to secure and guard these buildings. It also sounds like it was being pilfered up until this past Sunday so over the past year the entire 380 tons could have been stolen one ton per night to be turned into IED's. That is only 20 boxes weighing 100 pounds each which could easily be carried out with a hand cart in a short period of time.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 01:58 PM

Well the story specifcally states the looting up until this past Sunday was of metal from the bunker not the explosives.<br><br>Actually it sounds like no one knows when this stuff was taken.<br>More than likely it was taken or destroyed before we arrived.<br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: G4Dualie

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 02:03 PM

Actually it sounds like no one knows when this stuff was taken.<br>More than likely it was taken or destroyed before we arrived.<br><br>typical response from someone still sucking the otter pop.<br><br>
Posted by: G4Dualie

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 02:10 PM

The timeline is here.<br><br>[color:blue]March 2003: Nuclear agency inspectors visited Al-Qaqaa for the last time but did not examine the explosives because the seals were not broken. The inspectors then pulled out of the country.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 02:20 PM

McClellan has held a press conference about this. I am almost feel bad for that douchebag. Almost. In some parts it sounds like he is actually trying to pin the blame on the new Iraq government for this?<br><br>Was it even a priority? I guess the coalition couldn't handle this because they were protecting the borders. No... they were pacifying faluja. No... they were protecting nuclear facilities. No.... they were preventing looting of ancient artifacts and relics. No... they were preventing destruction of oil fields. Yes!! That's it.<br><br>I think the scariest thought is... what if there really had been WMD in Iraq? How would they possibly have been able to protect them from falling into a terrorist's hands?<br><br><br>edit: One journalist poses an interesting question. Is this the material that is being used in all these car bombs that have killed hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis? Can that question be answered?<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Trog on 10/25/04 05:31 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 02:24 PM

Ok, so from devil's advocate viewpoint......<br><br>We trust that Saddam didn't make fake seals, or maybe buy some from, say, a country that's alleged to have been breaking the arms for food embargoes.<br><br>We do know that, in military circles, while 380 tons of conventional explosives will make a HUGE bang, they're not classed as WMD's.<br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 02:36 PM

Looking at that timeline it does seem possible that Saddam himself could ordered the weapons to be moved before the U.S. invaded, right?<br><br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 05:02 PM

It all sounds like al caca to me, gentlemen, all around.<br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 07:02 PM

Boy, am I glad I caught NBC news tonight. Maybe the NYT and Rather need to go to the same journalism refresher course.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>NBC News: Jim 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 can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon. In a letter this month, the Iraqi interim government told the International Atomic Energy Agency the high explosives were lost to theft and looting due to lack of security. Critics claim there were simply not enough U.S. troops to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles, weapons now being used by insurgents and terrorists to wage a guerrilla war in Iraq.” (NBC’s “Nightly News,” 10/25/04)<p><hr></blockquote><p>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 07:25 PM

Decipher it for me, please. I get lost in moving from "...trigger a nuclear weapon" to "In a letter this month..." Strike you as a nonsequitur or am I just being obtuse?<br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 08:28 PM

So, its about the timing of it then. Did this happen before we invaded? During the invasion, or very shortly thereafter? <br><br>"Three weeks into the war". Were we securing oil wells yet?<br><br>The one thing that comes to my mind is that if the inspectors had still been in there, those weapons wouldn't have been moved without someone knowing, right? <br><br>God, what a mess!<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 08:35 PM

MSNBC reported that the WH is going to launch an investigation of this and kerry and president clinton are on the attack with regard to this issue. i think it plays well and they should stick to this theme despite the ambiguity in the facts. i've learned far too much about many voters and that is that they are easily swayed and easily convinced on things even when facts don't jive with what they've come to believe. attack, attack, attack! and, stretch the truth while you're at it. that's what wins.<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
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 08:42 PM

In an election week rush:<br><br>**ABCNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 4 Times<br>**CBSNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 7 Times<br>**MSNBC Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 37 Times<br>**CNN Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 50 Times<br><br>But tonight, NBCNEWS reported, once: The 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives were already missing back in April 10, 2003 -- when U.S. troops arrived at the installation south of Baghdad! <br><br>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. <br><br>According to NBCNEWS, the HMX and RDX explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: Trog

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 08:44 PM

As usual, the truth on this might be slippery.<br><br>Here's an AP article that says they had searched it in March of 2003 and the weapons were still intact.<br><br>"At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said US-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity."<br><br><br>Also, some good analysis by journalist Josh Marshall:<br><br>"If the Di Rita hypothesis rests on the claim that the first US troops that visited al Qa Qaa found that the explosives had already been stolen or looted or otherwise secreted away. (He has, in fact, already said this.) And that would mean that the US government has known the explosives were missing for some eighteen months.<br><br>The problem is that the White House has spent the entire day claiming that they knew nothing about this until ten days ago, October 15th. Scott McClellan said this repeatedly during his gaggle with reporters this morning. Indeed, he went on to say the following: "Now [i.e., after the notification on October 15th], the Pentagon, upon learning of this, directed the multinational forces and the Iraqi survey group to look into this matter, and that's what they are currently doing."<br><br>So McClellan says that the Pentagon only just learned about this. And that's why they only now assigned the Iraq Survey Group to examine what happened at al Qa Qaa.<br><br>But Di Rita says that the US government has known about it for 18 months.<br><br>So which is it?<br><br>They've known about it since just after the war and kept it a secret? Or they just found out about it ten days ago and now they're on the case?"<br><br>So, either way you look at it, there is something rotten about this in the White House.<br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 09:01 PM

But troops FIRST INSPECTED Al Qaqaa in MARCH 2003<br><br><br>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933 /<br><br>"At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "<br><br>Also, from the NYT<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 09:14 PM

Question: How did the US government know the explosives were missing, and yet not know?<br><br>Simple, just like all government agencies - they're kept in the dark over what the other agencies are doing. Someone knew, but didn't feel it important enough to pass onto another agency? In other words, the usual bureaucratic BS.<br><br>And didn't someone else claim that the inspectors didn't check inside the bunkers - since there was an intact seal on the doors? So I'd like to know if those claiming that the explosives were there at such and such date, actually opened the door and looked inside, or just read it off the manifest and looked at the tags and just assumed. It's all a question of Schrodinger's Cat!!<br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 09:28 PM

Looks to me like March inspection showed they were there.<br>April Inspection by IAEA says they are gone.<br><br><br>Rumsfeld said in response to the looting in Baghdad at this time, "Stuff happens".<br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 09:30 PM

Hmmm, non-anonymous NBC reporter embedded with US troops when they FIRST arrive at the actual site (one day after the fall of Bagdad) reporting openly that the explosives were not there vs. anonymous Pentagon source.<br>Of course, it still would be nice to know where they went. Thus the investigation. Of course all this has to be done while securing and destroying the other 400,000 tons of explosives currently known about.<br>But I agree the White House response needs to be looked at. But once it's pointed out that the response was not a lie just simply nuanced I'm sure everyone will excuse any inconstancies. <br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: Trog

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 09:56 PM

Yes, I agree, it looks like a he said - she said. You'll notice that before I posted the link to that article I mentioned the possibility that Saddam moved them immediately before or during the war. I still think that it makes another good case against the whole invasion in the first place, though (as if we need more reasons). The confusion of the invasion allowed a lot of low-profile looting that probably would not have happened with the constant presence of weapons inspectors.<br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 09:59 PM

Hmmm... is that a Times New Roman font? <br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 10:06 PM

"... were lost after April 9, 2003" is the money quote.<br><br>Who is going to call the IAEA liars now? <br><br>Is that 17 months since they notified the DOD? Condi said she just heard about this a month ago. Yet she still had time to campaign for Bush last week (yes, the National Security Advisor made a pass through swing states to stump for her boss two weeks after learning about the missing stockpile.)<br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/25/04 10:19 PM

Oh I agree that something is rotten. At the very least they knew they were gone, but had hoped it would not become a big deal. I suspect there are other naughty reports we'll hear about after the election, regardless of the outcome.<br><br>Will Stanford actually welcome her (Rice) back after Bush leaves? <br><br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/26/04 11:34 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I've unloaded molasses saturated bags of horse food which should be generally the density of high explosives.<p><hr></blockquote><p>You call yourself a scientist? :P<br><br>You could easily fit 380 2000 lb. bombs on a few freight cars, they're not particularly large. Plus RDX typically comes in sheets or wire form iirc. Another thing to consider, when they say 380 tons of RDX do they mean 380 tons of stuff, or the explosive equivalent? If you're talking the explosive equivalent of 380 tons of dynamite, the acutal weight and bulk would be far far less. After all, a 10 megaton bomb doesn't actually weigh that much, does it? :)<br><br>If we did bomb those bunkers and RDX was in it, none would be left. Pure RDX is less stable than nitro, the shockwave would have set it off, it's typically mixed with TNT to make it more stable.<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/26/04 12:01 PM

A scientist who has never dealt with this type of high explosive but I think my guess at the volume is realistic. When they speak of 380 tons I would think they are talking real mass and not explosive equivalent. That would be a large mistake. Since I have seen the news get this type of measure wrong all the time it may be explosive equivalent but I doubt it. <br><br>I have handled kegs of grey powder (used for shotgun shells) and black powder and there is no mysterious heaviness to it. They are not discussing iron bombs but the explosive material. I have seen PTEN on TV and I think the mass would be of the same magnitude or just slighlty more dense. So my guess of 13 freight cars stands.<br><br>Max capacity for a hopper rail car for coal is 30 tons. It is unlikely that a "few" rail cars would handle the 380 tons. We had this argument last year when you were hiding all of the WMD's espoused by the administration behind a few card board boxes. Haven't you learned yet? <br><br><br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: sean

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/26/04 12:32 PM

here's a <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1026/dailyUpdate.html">comprensive look</a> at many articles:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> The BBC points out two seemingly contradictory reports from NBC.<br><br>NBC television reported that one of its correspondents was embedded with the 101st Airborne Division which temporarily took control of the base on 10 April 2003 but did not find any of the explosives.<br>However, other US outlets, including NBC's own news website, quoted Pentagon officials who said a search of the site after the US-led invasion had revealed the explosives to be intact.<p><hr></blockquote><p>and, this one gets me because we could have easily reached this facility well before the fall of saddam since al qaqaa was south of baghdad. <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> The New York Times, which first reported the story late Sunday, wrote that the Al Qaqaa weapons facility (30 miles south of Baghdad) "was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday."<p><hr></blockquote><p>i guess the most troubling thing is that our leaders are now acting like this stuff missing is now news to them. HELLO, it's been missing for some time and they knew about this facility. <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> In several sessions with reporters, the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, alternately insisted that Mr. Bush "wants to make sure that we get to the bottom of this" and tried to distance the president from knowledge of the issue, saying Mr. Bush was informed of the disappearance only within the last 10 days. White House officials said they could not explain why warnings from the international agency in May 2003 about the stockpile's vulnerability to looting never resulted in action. At one point, Mr. McClellan pointed out that "there were a number of priorities at the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom."<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/26/04 12:39 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br><br>Max capacity for a hopper rail car for coal is 30 tons. It is unlikely that a "few" rail cars would handle the 380 tons.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm not talking weight, I'm talking physical dimensions. The warhead on a 2000 lb bomb is roughly 170 inches long and 18 inches in diameter. Yes, that is actually two tons of material. So physically you could pack about as many in a freight car as you could people. We know for a fact that 100 people would be stuffed into a rail car in WWII, so you're talking physical dimensions of 3-3.5 freight cars. Hell I'll give you benefit of the doubt and say 5. Not a terribly difficult task to bury in a desert, considering we're still finding complete fighter jets buried!<br><br>Oh, and BTW I'm sure ronclark can confirm the max weight for a modern box car is 286000 lbs or 143 tons gross rail load :)<br><br>** edit - actually I calculated it out, with a standard box car size you can physically place 192 of those bombs in a rail car. That's 384 tons worth of explosives.<br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by SgtBaxter on 10/26/04 03:49 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/26/04 01:04 PM

You are also talking about the weight of a missile already made. This is explosive material not in a warhead and not in a missile. This packaging would add density which may be tripping you up. Most 2000 pound bombs have extremely hard front ends so they can penetrate certain prescribed distances through the target before exploding. You need to spot me two more freight cars.<br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: Trog

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/26/04 01:06 PM

Sean, no need for a comprehensive look at articles. The actual NBC reporter has said they didn't search the facility. I posted this in another thread. In brief:<br><br><blockquote>AR: Was there a search at all underway or did a search ensue for explosives once you got there during that 24-hour period?<br><br>LLJ: No. There wasn't a search. The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around. But as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons, nothing to keep looters away. But there was - at that point the roads were shut off. So it would have been very difficult, I believe, for the looters to get there.<br><br>AR: And there was no talk of securing the area after you left. There was no discussion of that?<br><br>LLJ: Not for the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. They were -- once they were in Baghdad, it was all about Baghdad, you know, and then they ended up moving north to Mosul. Once we left the area, that was the last that the brigade had anything to do with the area.</blockquote><br><br><br>This isn't proof they were there, but it indicates how chaotic and secretive this whole issue is. I think its a catch-22 for the administration. Either they were still there and they have been looted on the coalition's watch or they were already stolen and they have been trying to keep it quiet. Its a no-win situation for the individuals involved in planning this invasion.<br><br>Rumsfeld, you have anything to say this week? <br><br>*cricket* *cricket*<br><br>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/26/04 01:39 PM

Well since there's so much speculation going on, how about the Mission:Impossible smoke and mirrors scenario.<br><br>This stuff can appear as a white powdery substance (not saying this is the form it was in, just saying it's possible and nobody has said what form it was stored in). So when the UN was checking this stuff out (once again I ask) were they counting sacks, crates, or grain hoppers and checking off on a manifest or was someone performing some tests to make sure this stuff was in fact "stuff that goes bang" rather than, say, flour. So, let us assume that we start out with 380 tons of High Explosive, but then over time, we swap HE for flour, right under the noses of the UN inspectors. Eventually the HE has been relocated elsewhere, doesn't matter where. Then when the US invades, the Iraq forces open the doors and the "HE" blows away in the wind. Nobody has to move or hide it following the last inspection because, in reality, there's nothing of value there.<br><br>(Or, maybe I've just watched too many episodes of the 60's TV series Mission:Impossible)<br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/26/04 01:40 PM

What gets me is this...<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>this one gets me because we could have easily reached this facility well before the fall of saddam since al qaqaa was south of baghdad.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Seriously Sean you have absolutly ZERO idea of what could have or not have been easily reached during the push to Bagdad. ZERO idea.<br><br>Looks like there are lots of reports about this flying around now, will be interesting to see how this story pans out over the next few days.<br>No wonder CBS wanted to hold this until Sunday. I'm sure they would have liked not giving the administration time to respond appropriately. But, I'm sure they're looking for a replacement "bomb" right now.<br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: garyW

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/26/04 01:55 PM

NBC (not Bush-Hating-Liberal-Biased-Conspiracy-Lying CBS) is sticking with their story, No Move to Secure the Weapons link<br><br>Their reporter did not search for these weapons.<br><br>"At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity."<br><br>The IAEA reported them looted after 4/9/03.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/26/04 02:18 PM

Dean, i know that we marched into baghdad from the south and this facility was 1/2 hour south of the city. i also know that we were bombing locations all over iraq. this facility could have easily been a target on the first day of bombing. if we later determined that the powerful explosives were not blown up and weren't there, then we'd know more definitively, but we'd also know that we did what we could to keep the stuff out of the hands of the people who currently have it (and, they're not us).<br><br>further, see gary's post above this one.<br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/26/04 04:48 PM

Your Mission Impossible smoke and mirrors scenario would have a scintilla of possibility if the inspectors were a bunch of idiots. In fact, inspection was working, Saddam had no WMD and the inspectors knew what Saddam had.<br>Unfortunately Bush did not believe them.<br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: garyW

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/26/04 04:54 PM

Inspector David Kay just said on Lou Dobbs show that the timeline is accurate, that the depot with explosives was sealed by IAEA up to the time the US troops entered the compound on their way to Baghdad. The IAEA inspectors returned 6 weeks later and notified the DOD that the weapons had been looted.<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/26/04 06:33 PM

that's a good point. he also pointed out that the first troops arrived at this location on april 3rd and this was reported on april 4th in the NY Times. i figured i'd mention this because Dean asked about it a few posts above. so, like i said, they could (and did) reach this location earlier than they reached baghdad. <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
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/26/04 06:43 PM

The IAEA thinks the explosives were there last on March 15, 2003 since the seals they had placed on the bunkers in January 2003 (when they actually physically saw the explosives)<br>We first arrive on April 4th. About three weeks to move the stuff.<br><br>The claim in the letter the Iraqi's presented to the UN and the IAEA claiming the stuff was looted after 4/9 has absolutely no back up proof. It's just a date on a paper. There has been zero proof that any person removed one ounce of the explosive after April 4, 2003. But we do have some evidence (not conclusive) that the stuff was not there.<br><br><br><br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/26/04 07:01 PM

This is from the "updated" NBC report...<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Then in March, shortly before the war began, the I.A.E.A. conducted another inspection and found that the HMX stockpile was still intact and still under seal. But inspectors were unable to inspect the RDX stockpile and could not verify that the RDX was still at the compound.<br><br>Pentagon officials say elements of the 101st Airborne did conduct a thorough search of several facilities around the Al QaQaa compound for several weeks during the month of April in search of WMD. They found no WMD. And Pentagon officials say it's not clear at that time whether those other elements of the 101st actually searched the Al QaQaa compound.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Hell, even on the March 15th inspection the IAEA couldn't even confirm 141 tons of the 380 were even still there!<br><br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 05:00 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>You are also talking about the weight of a missile already made. <p><hr></blockquote><p>Nah, it's actually the warhead not the entire bomb. They use standard warheads, the guidance packages, etc are added on. You're correct that the weight of the explosives is actually less, a 200lb warhead contains roughly 950 pounds of tritonal. But, you're forgetting to remove the space required by the bomb casing and the void in the middle of the explosive so you don't get spotted anything. :)<br><br>Regardless, we're both just speculating without knowing the form it was in. Assuming it was for nuclear use, it'd have to be very dense, heavy and compact. I wish we could find out that information. <br><br>But I think everyone is missing something very obvious, that is it'd be damn near impossible to loot 380 tons of anything! This stuff wasn't looted off on foot, or even by pickup truck. Perhaps a tiny fraction of it was. But is everyone forgetting nearly every single bridge in Baghdad and it's surrounding cities was wired with high explosives? I don't think the stuff was looted, or that Saddam hid it, I think it was carted off by the Iraqi army and used to wire these bridges. Hundreds and hundreds of bridges wired up would be a good chunk of this explosives.<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 05:22 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>But I think everyone is missing something very obvious, that is it'd be damn near impossible to loot 380 tons of anything! <p><hr></blockquote><p> Crikey, that was my point all along. Just like the large amounts of WMD that dissappeared you do not have 380 tons of stuf carried out in back packs. You need heavy trucks. Or a lot of time. It now seems that afteer the infantry stopped and took a look they left the place abandoned. Looters had 6 weeks to steal it.<br><br>Your idea that this high exposive was used within days to wire bridges in the area is even more farfetched than an overnight looting. This material would have taken a considerable amount of time to turn into satchle chargees for bridge demolition. Even if all the material, the blasting caps, wire, timers were there. The US forces showed up far more quicklly then expected. <br><br>All idle speculation. What is funny is the diffeerence in speculation between what happened to WMD and what happened to this cache of high expolisives and where it ended up. WMD in far greater amounts hip hopped to Syria like the Easter bunny although inspectors never reported it prior to the war and we did not find a trace after the war. This 380 tons of high explosivees which we knew existed because inspetor seals were on it and we screwed up royally not taking control of it must have been "used up" somehow.<br>Sadly, this stuff is likely being used to attack our forces today and may come to haunt us in the future.<br><br>Inspections were working. This debacle cannot be spun into anything more then the glaring example of why Bush's poicies from start to finish have been killing us while creating and arming more terrorists.<br><br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 06:32 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>This 380 tons of high explosivees which we knew existed because inspetor seals were on it and we screwed up royally not taking control of it<p><hr></blockquote><p>Nice fantasy except there is not one shred of evidence showing that there was anything there on April 4th to take control of.<br>Not one shred of evidence this stuff has been used in any explosive device.<br>In fact the common wisdom is that it would be impratical to use this stuff in IED's. It's way over powered for a car or roadside bomb when the current devices available to the terrorists already come with the explosive, shrapnel and detonator combined in one nice package.<br>To use this stuff you'd want to pack it in some case then you'd have to rig your own detonator. No reason to go to all that trouble when you can get the job done cheaper and easier.<br><br>Iraqis has since mid-January of 2003 to cart out 140 tons of the stuff and about three weeks between March 15th, 2003 and April 4th, 2003 to cart away the rest not to mention any of the stuff that was blown up with bombs.<br><br>We don't even know what form it was stored in which makes a huge difference on how this stuff has to be transported.<br><br>Finally, on the outside chance the stuff was there on April 4th and we didn't secure it then it hardly speaks of the incompitence of Bush it would directly speak to the compitence of the military and the military planners.<br><br>You speak as if Bush sits in the Oval office waiting for calls from unit commanders... "Mr, President this is Capt. Smith. We just stopped for about 24 hours at a huge bunker complex should we search it for high explosives?"<br>"No, Capt. nothing to worry about there just move along to Bagdad".<br><br>I'm glad you don't conduct your scientific research like your political research. i.e. start with the premise (Bush is incompetent) and then interperate the "evidence" to fit into the premise.<br> <br>Your case of otter pops is being overnighted.<br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 07:53 AM

That's the whole point with smoke and mirrors - and they do fool even the intelligent, if they're set up right. How often do you watch a stage magician and think - well I know How he did that, but I didn't See him do it.<br><br>The point I was making (in my own way) was that everyone is speculating about what happened. The problem with many US politically charged folks and (sadly) the US media is that they work on the knee jerk reaction. They don't wait for facts, in fact they sometimes go for the jugular in playing on fears and emotion. We have a missing cache of 380 tons of explosive - so to you and me our immediate reaction is OMG what were they thinking?! But then you hear that the US forces have found and secured 480K tons, so this particular missing cache is less than 0.1% of that total - so in perspective I can't think of anyone who gets that level of success in assigned mission, I mean how large is the voting error rate expected to be in this election?<br><br>So we're basically down to: Lots of stuff that makes a big bang is missing, but we cannot say with absolute certainty when it went missing, or where it went. We don't know how thorough the weapons inspectors were - did they test the stuff or just count crates (or whatever the stuff was stored in) and make assumptions (god knows that never happens in any other inventory counting exercise </sarcasm>). The US military was looking for WMD's during the initial invasion, not regular explosives, once they got to the completion of stage 1 - overthown Mr Hussain, and secure possible WMDs) they went on to secure the other priority stuff (and we all remember the complaints that Museums weren't on that list too).<br><br>And then we have the US media, and Kerry, et al taking (at best) shady information, presenting it as fact, and trying to scare the US population to vote for Kerry - because he's going to lead the troops looking under every grain of sand to find these missing explosives?! And I don't remember Bush being present in Iraq to take control of this storage facility, 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><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 08:15 AM

<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
Posted by: garyW

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 08:38 AM

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>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 09:08 AM

<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. .
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 09:29 AM

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>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 09:36 AM

"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>
Posted by: sean

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 09:50 AM

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
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 09:50 AM

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. .
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 09:51 AM

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

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 10:02 AM

"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>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 10:39 AM

"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>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 11:37 AM

I'm sorry, but I've gotten used to hearing the liberal mantra from the democratic party mouthpieces, which is then regurgitated verbatim by their sheeply followers, it is a pleasant surprise to discover that the person that you're arguing with actually has substantially more brain cells than your average sheep (and I'm not directing that as a slight on you; there are equally as many conservatives bowing at the altar of Rush Limbough who spout their party rhetoric just as religiously).<br><br>Unfortunately the liberal mouthpieces give the impression that they believe that the world can return to the state it was pre 9/11 if we just stop attacking the fanatics, and sit down with them at a table and try to figure out what it will take for them to stop trying to kill us. Unfortunately, we are breathing and we're not muslim - that's excuse enough and either one or the other state needs to be eliminated for them to live with us peacefully.<br><br>We've learnt from history that military plans rarely survive first contact because the other guy isn't playing to your play book. That doesn't mean that the military leader is incompetent (though the losing general usually gets convicted of such, if he's not killed in the action) it just means that the other guy was more successful at messing with your guys play book, than your guy was at messing with his. It's really great being able to sit here with 20-20 hindsight and say - hey he did that wrong, or could have done that better.<br><br>What we do have is a few truck loads of unknowns. So the Kerry campaign and the media are filling in the facts with speculation - and all of a sudden we're all in mortal jeopardy, but Kerry will save us (incidently as reprehensible an action as the Bush Campaign claiming we'll all be nuked if we vote Kerry - though the media derides the Bush campaign, and goes brass band and fireworks behind Kerry). But back to point - what is Kerry and the media expecting if he is voted in? That the explosives will magically reappear at Al Qaqaa? That the fanatics will drive up in a truck convoy and say we're really sorry, here's the explosives? Or maybe we should just have a bi-partisan congressional commission investigate?<br><br>But further to my previous point, a terrorist doesn't need access to high grade explosives to go about his business. Heck most of them probably wouldn't even know how to prepare or detonate the stuff. We're painfully aware what they can do with small amounts of improvised explosives, and that given time and planning, they can make use of pretty much anything to kill vast numbers of people.<br><br>What new things can be achieved with 380 tons of high grade explosives, that cannot already be achieved with varying quantities of standard explosives, large airplanes or any other IED? The homeland security mission remains the same. The risk to our troops remains the same. Like a ninja from the shadows these people will strike, whether you're prepared for it or not.<br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 11:59 AM

I'm replying to myself because I'm not trying to single anyone out, and I don't know how important this argument (the timeline) really is, but I thought it was worth posting this Yahoo article from this morning.<br><br>Maybe you don't believe the article, maybe you don't believe Iraqi scientists or their so-called "certified statements" to back it up, but one thing is clear: Would our puppet government please stop criticizing and correcting us? Its so embarrassing! <br><br><br>Iraq says 'impossible' explosives taken before regime fall.<br><br>"It is impossible that these materials could have been taken from this site before the regime's fall," said Mohammed al-Sharaa, who heads the science ministry's site monitoring department and previously worked with UN weapons inspectors under Saddam.<br><br>"The officials that were inside this facility (Al-Qaqaa) beforehand confirm that not even a shred of paper left it before the fall and I spoke to them about it and they even issued certified statements to this effect which the US-led coalition was aware of."<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 12:09 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Maybe you don't believe the article<p><hr></blockquote><p>hell no . . . anything that makes my man look bad with 6 days to go must be lie. <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
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 12:28 PM

This is a good piece of information and I know this will sound like nitpicking but what date is he referring to when he says "regime's fall"?<br>March 20th - Beginning of bombing campaign and troop invasion?<br>April 9th - Fall of Bagdad<br>Or some other date?<br><br>Seriously, we need a specific date to put this in context.<br><br><br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 12:35 PM

Iraqi Govenment says something Pro-Bush, leftie response: PUPPET GOVERNMENT - Bush ECHO CHAMBER!<br><br>Iraqi Govement says something anti-Bush, leftie reponse: Wow! These guys know how to speak the truth! They are the best, full of integrity and independence.<br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: sean

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 12:48 PM

i think the world recognizes them as a puppet gov't. this makes their admission all the more surprising given how much of an echo we heard when the interim president visited D.C. perhaps they are trying to get some distance from the hated US? with elections on the horizon, this seems entirely plausible, does it not? then again, the gov't official who released this document might have done so prematurely before the puppet part of the gov't kicked in.<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
Posted by: Trog

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 01:15 PM

Maybe it was...<br><br>May 1st - Mission Accomplished? <br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 09:20 PM

bold emphasis mine:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>This 380 tons of high explosivees which we knew existed because inspetor seals were on it and we screwed up royally not taking control of it must have been "used up" somehow.<br>Sadly, this stuff is likely being used to attack our forces today and may come to haunt us in the future.<br><br>Inspections were working.<p><hr></blockquote><p>380 tons because the IAEA told us...<br>Inspections were working...<br><br>Now, where did I put that post about the real incompetence was the IAEA and the UN?<br><br>Discrepancy found in explosive amounts<br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: garyW

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 09:56 PM

"<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Unfortunately the liberal mouthpieces give the impression that they believe that the world can return to the state it was pre 9/11 if we just stop attacking the fanatics, and sit down with them at a table and try to figure out what it will take for them to stop trying to kill us."<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>What part of Kerry's "I will hunt down the terrorists and we will kill them" isn't clear?<br><br>Bill O'Reily said tonight ending his show that 'ideology makes people hear only what they want to hear". True dat.<br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 10:10 PM

Well that's the problem. That is what he says but just about everything he has said before and all his actions before don't support this.<br><br>I believe that in response to 9/11 he would have tried to "hunt down" OBL but that's all he would have done. Tried to capture that one man. Then he would have worked on only internal stuff like a terrorism cabinet position or raising taxes so we could inspect 9% of cargo containers.<br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: sean

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 10:15 PM

i think anyone who was president on 9/11 would have went after al qaeda and would probably still have world support in this effort. i am about as much of a pacifist as you'll find and knew we had to go after al qaeda and would have done so as president. that was a no-brainer. the iraq war, on the other hand, was a brainless move, so i guess you could say in a twisted way that it was also a "no-brainer" move. <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
Posted by: garyW

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 10:41 PM

So much of the intense criticism of Kerry begins with "I believe he would have...."<br><br>Well you don't know, and Bush doesn't know as he claims what the world would be like today if Kerry had been in charge. It's bogus and only clouds the issues we're dealing with right now. Not what ifs.<br><br>'What Kerry would have done' derived statements through the republican filter are as dishonest as the the lame-ass reinvention of his "global test" comment.... the way the Bush people spin it you would think these people could never have passed a basic high school SAT reading comprehension exam. You are an intelligent guy. You've read the transcript of Kerry's debate comment in its full context. Do you honestly interpret what he stated, as Ed Gillispe's talking point interpretation, that Kerry will ask permission from France before he would protect America's security? When Bush says this do you believe it is being honest?<br><br>The other day I heard Dennis Miller respond to a question on how he will react to a Kerry victory. Miller answered something like, "on Nov.3 he will be my president and I will support him 100%".<br><br>I hope all Americans will have the same decency. I know I tried to keep an open mind when Bush took office despite the horrible election fracas, and I certainly was behind Bush on 9/12. If Kerry wins, let him prove himself. Then you can truthfully criticze him for what he has done and not what "he probably would do".<br><br><br> <br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/27/04 10:54 PM

When a brand new Peanuts cartoon came out, did you believe Lucy when she told Charlie Brown that "this time" she wouldn't pull the football away?<br>This is how I see Kerry's "I will kill the terrorists..." line.<br><br>I say "I believe" based on Kerry a multitude of previous statements and his track record of foreign policy votes.<br><br>If I were to accept your premise then I could just as easily say people are voting against Bush just because "they believe" he'll make bad decisions for the country in the next term when they should just really give him the benefit of the doubt and let him prove himself.<br><br>And yes based on all previous John Kerry statements over the last 20 or so years I think Kerry would seek permission for US military action from the UN and if the UN denies permission no such military action would proceed.<br><br>And if he is shown to be the president on November 24th then I will look at his actions starting on Jan. 20th and will criticize his actions if warranted.<br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 07:01 AM

Trouble is Kerry gives the impression that he believes Al Qaida is a Dragon - cut off it's head and it will die. The trouble is with fanatical organisations they are more akin to an Hydra, cut off its head and it will grow back. Kerry has stated categorically that he will capture and kill (no trial?) Osama bin Laden - I then read into that, "job done, war against terror is over" - which is what many Americans want to hear. Stop the needless waste of the lives of the US armed forces. Trouble is that still leaves Al Qaida members alive and a new head will replace ObL, and the killings will continue.<br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 07:12 AM

[thread diversion]<br>Well, really more than likely OBL is dead already. So all his talk about OBL the person falls on deaf ears for me.<br>Then Kerry turning the OBL hunt into a "failure" is crap too.<br>"Outsourcing" Tora-Bora is false and again contradicts his earlier statements about our Tora-Bora stragedy.<br>I guess if this were a "War against OBL" and not a "War against Terrorism" I'd be more worried about OBL whereabouts and disposition but this fight is about so much more than OBL.<br>[/thread diversion]<br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 07:22 AM

exactly what I was getting at.....ObL is the "poster boy of evil" for the left. His bank accounts are frozen, his primary known Lt's are dead or captured - my guess is even if he is alive his effectiveness is vastely diminished.<br><br>
Posted by: dekker_rk

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 07:28 AM

Interesting report.<br><br>http://kstp.dayport.com/viewer/viewerpage.php?Art_ID=159660<br><br>Might have to use Internet Explorer to view it.<br><br><br><br>"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein <br> <br><br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 07:31 AM

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1<br><br><br>A 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew in Iraq shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein was in the area where tons of explosives disappeared.<br><br>The missing explosives are now an issue in the presidential debate. Democratic candidate John Kerry is accusing President Bush of not securing the site they allegedly disappeared from. President Bush says no one knows if the ammunition was taken before or after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003 when coalition troops moved in to the area.<br><br>Using GPS technology and talking with members of the 101st Airborne 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS determined our crew embedded with them may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where that ammunition disappeared. Our crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa. On April 18, 2003 they drove two or three miles north into what is believed to be that area.<br><br>During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew bunker after bunker of material labelled explosives. Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get in and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords.<br>"We can stick it in those and make some good bombs." a soldier told our crew. <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: skuldugary

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 07:35 AM

"This story will be huge and someone in this administration needs to take responsibility."<br><br>Yes, someone needs to take responsibility. That someone should be Kerry. He's a terrorist in our own country. He's doing exactly what a terrorist does. He's spreading fear and hate. He's denouncing our allies, our military, our government. These are absolut facts.<br><br>Now he's jumped on this 380 tons nonsense, and for what? So he can be elected. A wise leader would have waited to see all the facts. Not Kerry. At your expense, he leaped on this and is playing on our fears for his gain. <br><br>Is this the kind of leader you want? To Kerry, you are a tool for his use. He's done more damage to cause a division in our country than anyone since the Civil War. <br><br>He's not just stupid. He's evil<br><br>
Posted by: dekker_rk

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 07:42 AM

"This story will be huge and someone in this administration needs to take responsibility."<br><br>Yes, someone needs to take responsibility. That someone should be Kerry. He's a terrorist in our own country. He's doing exactly what a terrorist does. He's spreading fear and hate. He's denouncing our allies, our military, our government. These are absolut facts.<br><br>Now he's jumped on this 380 tons nonsense, and for what? So he can be elected. A wise leader would have waited to see all the facts. Not Kerry. At your expense, he leaped on this and is playing on our fears for his gain. <br><br>Is this the kind of leader you want? To Kerry, you are a tool for his use. He's done more damage to cause a division in our country than anyone since the Civil War. <br><br>He's not just stupid. He's evil[b]<br><br><br><br>Sorry that's Cheney's Job.<br><br><br><br>"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein <br> <br><br><br>
Posted by: skuldugary

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 08:34 AM

You're comment is without merit and therefore worthless and empty. <br><br>Don't try to shift attention from a real danger. The people who blindly support Kerry don't pay attention to what's going on. That they know a few pieces of memorized slogans and cling to it because it gives them a sense that they are knowledgable when in fact, they are anything but. <br><br>Kerry is doing for America what the KKK is doing for racisim.<br><br>
Posted by: dekker_rk

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 08:40 AM

"You're comment is without merit and therefore worthless and empty."<br>"Kerry is doing for America what the KKK is doing for racisim."<br><br>[b]right back at you....[b]<br><br><br><br>"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein <br> <br><br><br>
Posted by: dekker_rk

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 08:48 AM

Or maybe we should all blame the troops like good old Rudolph has been doing in the talk shows....?<br><br><br><br><br><br>"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein <br> <br><br><br>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 08:56 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>right back at you....<br><p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Wow, not heard that method of argument since kindergarten<br><br>
Posted by: skuldugary

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 09:01 AM

We have a lost little boy. Would someone please come and claim him?<br><br><br><br>Are there any adults in the room who'd like to respond??<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: dekker_rk

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 09:13 AM

Very adult of you.<br><br>thanks for the youth compliment.<br><br><br><br><br>"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein <br> <br><br><br>
Posted by: dekker_rk

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 09:21 AM

Skul if you are trying to pick an argumentative fight lets go but dont try to belittle me by saying that I am a minor with coments like "We have a lost little boy. Would someone please come and claim him?" trust me i really dont care what you say or think but what you are saying is simply childish. i look at the forums alot and hardly ever comment in them and is mainly because of people like you. <br><br>Kerry is doing for America what the KKK did for racism....wow you seem to really have a grasp on the facts. <br><br><br><br>"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein <br> <br><br><br>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 09:21 AM

and to go back to something GaryW said way back<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>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><p><hr></blockquote><p>Knowing that terrorists have this stuff would alter our level of security in our favour. If you don't know someone has something then (if they have it) you are more at risk because you're not looking for them to have it. If you suspect or know that someone has something, then you can include them using it in your defensive plans.<br><br>9/11 was such a shock to the world, since up to that time, suicide bombers usually only sacrificed one person in their attacks, and hijacking an aircraft was usually done for political goals, and both the terrorists and passengers could expect that most would walk away from wherever the plane landed (based on historical hijackings). So the terrorists sacrifice multiple (of their) lives in the attack, and nobody walked away from the aircraft. Now we know that they're prepared to use that method of attack, we are more prepared to look for them trying. But the risk was always there, we just didn't plan for it.<br><br>The unknown is always the bigger threat. And if we were to assume that the radical organisations do have this stuff and we only found out last week, it still wouldn't change that they had it before we found out - goes with the question, "What was the largest island in the world before Australia was discovered?"<br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Llewelyn on 10/28/04 12:24 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 09:29 AM

great, we can cross it off the 'known inventory' score card, one car bomb at a time. <br><br>
Posted by: skuldugary

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 10:07 AM

First, don't throw out mindless retorts and expect to be dealt with on a serious level. You got exactly what you posted. <br><br>Secondly, I clearly have much more a grasp of facts than you care to admit to. I realize I'm dealing with another 'head in the sand' Kerry follower. Kerry is driving a divison between Americans. He does it every time he opens his mouth. <br><br>If you took the time to look at the difference between Bush and Kerry you'd see it. But you don't, do you. Kerry talks about how flawed America is, how we need to hold ourselves up to the European Court, how the Vietnam war was wrong, how the Iraq war was wrong, how we deal with the UN is wrong, how health care is wrong, this is wrong, that is wrong... and the man just goes on and on.<br><br>Does anyone even pay attention? He throws suspisions at Bush that he lied about WMDs. Well, we have solid FACTS that Kerry has lied over and over to us. Let me say that again... FACTS. Proven, documented facts Kerry lied, and yet, it's okay with you and others like you. It's okay that he lies to get into office. <br>For crying out loud, are the Kerry followers that stupid or just plain out of their minds?<br><br>If the man is willing to lie now, do you think he will suddenly turn around and be truthful with you when he gets in office? What other lies is he telling you that haven't been reveiled yet?<br><br>It's time to wake up. Rub the sleep from your eyes and see Kerry for the lying puppet he is.<br><br>
Posted by: dekker_rk

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 10:32 AM

By your rhetoric I can safely assume that you are voting for Bush no matter what. So in YOUR eyes he can do no wrong and has never lied. Maybe you should take your own advice and get YOUR head out of the sand and see Bush for what he is a liar i can start posting all kind of links to his own brand of Flip floping and misleading the public. I really did not want to start a (he said, no he said) argument but we are in an election year as you might be aware of and i don't think calling on the president's few good points a wining campaign. lets face the facts this president wont admit to anything erroneous and neither will you. But really thanks for all your kind compliments, nothing brings me more joy than to aggravate people like you who cannot have an argument without resorting to name calling.<br><br>"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein <br> <br><br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 10:36 AM

Are you handing out Otter Pops with those score cards because there is a toxic level in this thread. Is it time to call Kerry or Bush a Nazi? <br><br><br><br><br><br><br>red sox otter pops for sale
Posted by: dekker_rk

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 10:38 AM

<br><br>"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein <br> <br><br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 10:46 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>lets face the facts this president wont admit to anything erroneous<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>This is another one that always gets me.<br><br>Why should he admit to anything erroneous at this point? Just so he can see himself in a Kerry campaign commercial detailing mistakes.<br><br>I mean REALLY! Look at how Kerry jumped over the al Qaqaa story and at worst is speaks to the incompitence of our military, not Bush. He has a campaign commerial out in less than 12 hours.<br>So, you really think he's going to go on record at this point saying something like "It was a mistake not to wait one more week before commiting troops to the ground" or some other such absurdity?<br><br>Give me a break.<br><br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: Trog

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 10:50 AM

I actually looked for Otter pops at the grocery store this week. <br><br>I guess its a little late in the season, even for Arizona - damn. A little poncho punch would have been good for the festivities surrounding the second third of your 'trifecta'. To be honest I don't really give a crap about 2/3 of it, but I'll certainly cheer for the Patriots if it will help next week!<br><br>Hmmm... haven't tried Safeway yet.<br><br>
Posted by: dekker_rk

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 10:50 AM

In that sense I agree with you even tough he was asked a direct question in the debates reagarding ANY mistakes in his presidency. I'm really referring to skul who lives in a world where his politician is infalible and the others are just a bunch of liars.<br><br><br><br><br>"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein <br> <br><br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 10:56 AM

I absolutely agree that admitting mistakes a week before the polls is political suicide. I don't blame him for not doing it now either.<br><br>But, if he had owned up to something when asked point-blank in press conferences and debates it wouldn't be quite as big an issue. Don't you think that he should have admitted some of his mistakes at some point over the last four years?<br><br>I mean, c'mon, he could have said something like he should have made the tax cuts even bigger (just a crude example, Rove would do better). Its his utter silence and frustration with that one question that is so sad its almost comical.<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 11:00 AM

exactly. this is just like the interview question that asks about your weaknesses. you're supposed to turn it around and use it to your advantage; not say, "i can't think of anything right now."<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
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 11:03 AM

Looks like Otter Pops are being sold in California ( whodathunkit?) but you can pick some up on EBAY.<br><br>As for the trifecta I am keeping all my rally cap mojo aligners running until late Tuesday. My dog would like to get out of the Red Sox dress but not until polls close in California.<br><br><br><br>red sox otter pops for sale
Posted by: Trog

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 11:11 AM

Food items from ebay? Doesn't sound very appealing.<br><br>Maybe I should just pick up some flavor-aid, toothpicks and icetrays to make them myself. I could just add a touch of PEG or glycerol to make them "slushy".<br><br>Wait, no, a touch of gin would do the same trick. <br><br><br>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 11:58 AM

What "known inventory"? I was very careful to add "If they have it" since the facts of this case are still not clear. Was it there? How much was there? Where is it now? When did it disappear?<br><br>It is prudent for our armed forces to consider that it "may" be in the hands of the militants, since what you don't know can most certainly harm you. However, there is no FACT that terrorists have these explosives. IF this stuff does show up in an explosion (I have faith that explosive experts can figure out what was used and how much, since our forensic skills are quite excellent these days) - all you can do is "keep score" about how much has been used - not how much they have left.<br><br>Just because you don't know the other guys order of battle, doesn't mean that when you discover something for definite that you are now more at risk. You were at risk before - you just didn't know it.<br><br>This seems to be a fundamental difference between left and right mindset. The left believes that guns kill, the right believes that people kill. A gun on a table will not leap up and kill you spontaneously. If I pick the gun up and point it at you then you could possibly assume that your life is in jeopardy. But your life is in just as much jeopardy if you're not aware that I have a gun that is pointing at you. If you manage to eliminate said gun from the equation, it still doesn't take away the fact that your life could still be in jeopardy since I could use an improvised weapon or my bare hands. The same is true of the terrorists - whether they have or don't have these explosives is a point if less significant importance. If they don't have it, it still doesn't reduce the risk that they prevent to you, the US population or our armed forces (they'll just use something else).<br><br>All this story is, is a political football that is being carried by the Kerry campaign, just like the Cheney football of - Vote Kerry and get nuked. Neither is a responsible statement, but they're politicians....I know I just don't expect much more than that from them in their quest for power - they see life as a game, and power is the scorecard, money is just a currency that they can use to gain more power.<br><br>I guess sardonically the democrat and republican campaigns are just another form of terrorism. It just depends how deeply you buy into their message......me? I'll just stick to the facts and plan for the knows, and try not to get blind sided by the unknowns.<br><br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 12:08 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Your idea that this high exposive was used within days to wire bridges in the area is even more farfetched than an overnight looting. This material would have taken a considerable amount of time to turn into satchle chargees for bridge demolition.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>What the hell are you talking about? Perhaps for your lazy ass it would have. :)<br><br>But a few hundred army guys with trucks? A day or two at best, even for the mess the Republican guard was. It only takes a few guys a few hours at most to wire a bridge. They had weeks before we reached Baghdad, are you suggesting the day we crossed the line into Iraq they sat there on their hands for two weeks until we were knocking on the doorstep? <br><br>
Posted by: skuldugary

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 12:10 PM

And in true Kerry fashion, you COMPLETLY dodge my statement. <br><br>You neither confirm or deny it, do you? This is what we see from Kerry all the time. Nice job.<br><br>
Posted by: skuldugary

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 12:13 PM

"and the others are just a bunch of liars"<br>So can I translate your statement into Kerry has never lied?<br><br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 12:14 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> It only takes a few guys a few hours at most to wire a bridge. <p><hr></blockquote><p> Really? If we were to believe Condaleeza Rice this stuff was in a configuration to be used to set off a nuclear device. You must be very handy to be able to take that type of charge and change it into something that would blow up a bridge. I think you have have watched too many movies. Is the Mission Impossible theme playing in the background when you dream this stuff up?<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>red sox otter pops for sale
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 12:16 PM

So GWB won't admit to making errors in judgement, and JFK won't admit to lying.<br><br>Bah, sounds like the "not Bush" ticket is just as bad as what we have. Why don't we have a revolution and replace these politicians with a "by the people, for the people" form of government.<br><br>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 12:17 PM

No it was me with Mission:Impossible on my mind.<br><br>Anyway there's way too many statements about how this stuff was allegedly stored. Depending upon the words used I see white powder (kind of like flour), bricks of explosive, ready to fire high-explosive shells. Personally I'm inclined not to take anyones word for anything on this particular matter, at least until the US inspectors come out and categorically state - the explosives we inventoried were stored in XXXXX form.<br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Llewelyn on 10/28/04 03:22 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: skuldugary

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 12:19 PM

I have to say it never ends to amaze me how a thread can go hot and heavy then when someone throws a bulls eye on Kerry, suddenly the topic changes to something, anything just so they don't have to deal with defending Kerry's lie.<br><br>That alone speaks volumes for what people really think of Kerry. You know he's a liar. You know his spine is made up of focus group opinions. You know he's a empty puppet that says what ever some drops into lap. And inspite of how badly he will trash this county, you let your hate for Bush make you ignore all of that. <br><br>Well, go ahead and vote for Kerry. Then as the county and your income rot away, you can tell me how it's all Bush's fault then. <br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 12:21 PM

Well that press conference was recent enough that it was in the middle of this campaign season and his words would have still been used against him.<br><br>But in the larger sense two things.<br>1. I don't think Bush a "quick" thinker. I think he's smart just not quick on his feet. But quick thinking is not something I look for in a President, nice, but not necessary. So he does fustrate me when he seems flummoxed by questions like the "mistake" question in that press conference. But again this doesn't worry me because I'm more worried about his day-to-day performance and policy direction than his press conference and debate performance.<br>2. Yes, if a man makes a mistake he should own up to that mistake. So, it comes down to does he think he's made any major mistakes. I'm sure he's made pleanty of minor ones. And what I think is a mistake he may not. For instance, I think his steel tarrifs were a mistake. But he probably doesn't. Many on this board think several aspects of the war have been a mistake. He probably doesn't.<br>So really I don't wait around for ANY politician to admit a mistake I just have to look at his record and compare it to what I think is good or bad.<br><br>Last Bush knows who his audience is, the World and Iraqi terrorists. He knows that if he admits to a war mistake it emboldens Iraqi terrorists. He's just not going to do that.<br><br>I think after he's out of office you'd hear him talking more about his mistakes.<br><br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: dekker_rk

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 12:22 PM

Gladly<br><br><br><br>"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein <br> <br><br><br>
Posted by: skuldugary

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 12:30 PM

I dare you to read the documented lies that Kerry has told.<br><br>I know you won't because you're not interested in the truth. <br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 12:42 PM

"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth. No truth- handler, you. Bah! I deride your truth-handling abilities." (sideshow Bob)<br><br>
Posted by: skuldugary

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 12:47 PM

"Good evening, I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is true. And by true I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies, so in the end, isn't that the truth? The answer is 'no.'" -- Leonard Nimoy from the Simpsons<br><br>
Posted by: skuldugary

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 12:48 PM

"I'll be back. You can't keep the Democrats out of the White House forever, and when they get in, I'm back on the streets, with all my criminal buddies." -- Sideshow Bob<br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 01:20 PM

Oh, I suppose you could say that last April was "middle of the campaign" season, if we're talking about the same press conference? But, I don't think that's the reason why he didn't list any mistakes. I think you're closer to the mark when you say he really doesn't believe he's made any. If you believe Pat Robertson's recent statements (and why shouldn't you, he's a devout christian ), then Bush didn't think we would suffer *any* casualties in Iraq. That's pretty incredible and Pat never retracted his statement.<br><br>No, but the thing that surprises me is not Bush's weird idea of reality (that he doesn't make mistakes), but that as a politician he still didn't have a good answer at the debates. The end to that, fairly positive, press conference last spring was a debacle because of that one question and so I just expected that six month's later Rove and company would have come up with a good canned answer for him to use in that situation. Instead he seemed almost as confused about what to say in the debates. I can think of lots of positive spin he could have said and I don't even like the guy! This is like interviewing 101. "What are some of your weak points". "Well, for starters, I work too hard." <br><br>
Posted by: Walrus

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 09:18 PM

[T]he Associated Press has made public at least a portion of their own interview with Col. David Perkins, who commanded the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division. As reported by the AP, the interview is quite different from what the Times has represented:<br><br>The infantry commander whose troops first captured the Iraqi weapons depot where 377 tons of explosives disappeared said Wednesday it is "very highly improbable" that someone could have trucked out so much material once U.S. forces arrived in the area.<br><br>Two major roads that pass near the Al-Qaqaa installation were filled with U.S. military traffic in the weeks after April 3, 2003, when U.S. troops first reached the area, said Col. David Perkins.<br><br><br>Perkins' description seemed to point toward the possibility that the explosives were removed before the U.S.-led invasion to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, rather than during the chaos afterward.<br><br><br>[T]he Pentagon said in a statement, "The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd I.D.'s arrival at the facility."<br><br><br>According to Perkins, his 2nd Brigade arrived in the area near Al-Qaqaa on April 3, 2003, as part of the first large coalition combat force to come so close to Baghdad. His troops were attacked by Iraqi forces based inside the installation, he said. Al-Qaqaa had more than 80 buildings in a walled complex.<br><br><br>Perkins estimated there were a few hundred enemy fighters. He sent the 3rd Battalion of the 15th Infantry to secure the base and the surrounding area, he said. A company of mechanized infantry and a mortar platoon entered the installation and defeated the Iraqi forces.<br><br><br>As the rest of Perkins' brigade moved on, the 3rd Battalion spent two days in the area looking for other Iraqi forces, Perkins said. The Americans did not specifically search for any high explosives, although they were aware that Al-Qaqaa was an important site for what was believed to be Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.<br><br><br>Some troops found a white powdery substance on the base. But it was tested and determined it was not a chemical or biological weapon, as had been suspected, he said. Perkins did not know what it was.<br><br><br>Troops found other weapons, including artillery shells, on the base, he said. They didn't specifically search for the 377 tons of high explosives, HMX and RDX, that are missing.<br><br>More on this story here.<br><br>
Posted by: G4Dualie

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/28/04 10:07 PM

Let me add to that... Al-Qaqaa has an area the size of Manhattan.<br><br>
Posted by: nutty

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/29/04 07:14 AM

seems there is a video shows stuff was there, by embedded reporters<br><br><br>I would rather die free than live in fear, and without liberty.
Posted by: garyW

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/29/04 07:25 AM

a summary and comments by expert David Kay on that video here<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/29/04 08:55 AM

Flash from Drudge:<br>FLASH 10.29.01 11:36:56 ET /// Soldier to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al Qaqaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons... Developing..<br><br>Now, if this is on Drudge's site does that mean if there is a Pentagon briefing it is not to be believed? <br><br>This is becoming a neat story with all the back and forth.<br><br><br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/29/04 09:03 AM

Size of manhantan maybe, but looks like mostly sand and desert to me. Nice analogy, makes the place seem like it has thousands of buildings and there was no way troops could have possibly looked and saw everything.<br><br><br><br>[color:blue]All your sock puppets are belong to us</font color=blue>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/29/04 09:15 AM

That photo is not of the entire complex. I think the entire complex has somewhere around 80 buildings.<br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: garyW

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/29/04 09:38 AM

Russian cleaned out the place in January.<br>Satellite photo shows Iraqi's moving the stuff in March.<br>Claim that only 3 tons remained as invasion began.<br>Pentagon claims to have moved 200 tons in April, all moved in one day.<br>Film from April shows lots of stuff there in April.<br><br><br>Anyone confused yet? <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/29/04 09:49 AM

I know, I just listened to the press conference and all I could make out of it was "blah, blah, blah".<br><br>But, geeze I wonder why 60 minutes wanted to sit on this until Sunday? Bunch of right-wingers. <br><br>But now that RatherGate bombed and this story is either going to bomb or be successfully muddled until Tuesday they are going to go with a failure to provide body armor story on Sunday.<br><br>You think if CBS News and FOX News were to meet in the vaccume of space they would just go "poof" and cease to exsist?<br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: garyW

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/29/04 09:56 AM

IAEA official reported by MSNBC that this photo shows trucks at the bunkers that contained rocket artillary shells.<br><br>
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/29/04 10:24 AM

Ok, here's one from MSNBC video that shows the sprawling Manhatan sized weapons facility is mostly sand and desert.<br><br><br><br>[color:blue]All your sock puppets are belong to us</font color=blue>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/29/04 10:27 AM

Johnny, I'm not getting your point here.<br>Are you under the impession this the al Qaqaa site is 1-6 building big?<br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: Trog

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/29/04 10:40 AM

Is that Baghdad? <br><br>
Posted by: Walrus

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/29/04 10:42 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Anyone confused yet? <br><p><hr></blockquote><p>Well, John Kerry for one...<br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/29/04 10:43 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>You think if CBS News and FOX News were to meet in the vaccume of space they would just go "poof" and cease to exsist?<p><hr></blockquote><p>HAHA! <br><br>I won't argue that CBS is liberal, but from a mathematics point of view I don't think that would happen. Fox would survive but would become slightly less conservative. CBS, on the other hand, would be obliterated and assimilated like a little neutrino sucked into a black hole.<br>
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/29/04 10:44 AM

Probably makes sense if you read in threaded mode.<br><br>Story was about 3rd Battalion spending two days looking around the facility, G4dualie said it was about the size of Manhattan. Probably is the same square footage as Manhattan. I was just pointing out it's nothing like Manhattan - <br><br><br><br>It was, as you say 80 buildings, in mostly desert and sand with 380 tons of explosives secretly hidden in clearly marked IAEA tags. More like this - multiplied by 10<br><br><br><br>heh, maybe I'm just nit picking here.<br><br>[color:blue]All your sock puppets are belong to us</font color=blue><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by JonnyCat on 10/29/04 01:47 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/29/04 11:05 AM

A more comprehensive view:<br><br><br><br>Not saying anything one way or the other, just providing more info =)<br><br>***matt<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/29/04 11:11 AM

Ok, I see.<br>I just looked at a full map of the complex. From the IAEA report it looks like a total of 8 complexes like the one you pictured in the entire compound making a total of 55 bunkers plus I'm sure support building not detailed on the map I'm looking at.<br><br>The material in questioned were spead across 10 bunkers.<br>On 1/4/2003 they reported counting<br>HMX - 194,741 kg (214.6 tons)<br>RDX - 3,080 kg (3.4 tons)<br>PETN - 3500 kg (3.9 tons)<br>Total 221.9 tons (approx.)<br><br>Again just more FYI.<br><br>[edited to revise the number of bunkers, 9 contained HMX and 1 other contained both the RDX and PETN]<br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by AfterTenSoftware on 10/29/04 02:39 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/29/04 11:24 AM

Little more FYI.<br>On the 1/4/2003 inspection the RDX and PETN bunkers were not sealed. Only the nine bunkers with the HMX were sealed and vents in those bunkers may have allowed access to the materials inside without disturbing the seals.<br><br>No sig right now, waiting for the next Kerry flip-flop. .
Posted by: G4Dualie

Re: Al Qaqaa - 10/29/04 04:57 PM

I wasn't implying the area was densely rich in bunkers... only that it was spread out over a large area the size of Manhattan and to traverse the area inspecting every pile of boxes or debris, opening every bunker, was not in their general orders.<br><br>I thought I read that the army met with minimal resistance when they first encountered the Al-Qaqaa area and investigated briefly to determine whether the threat still existed or would otherwise be a threat to their "six", but weren't necessarily in the area to catalogue or inventory the contents of these bunkers.<br><br>