Breaking News - The Explosives were destroyed by US in 2003

[GWB]

Pentagon briefing on the Al Qaqaa story: On April 13, 2003 the explosives were destroyed and disposed of by US military forces. (no link available yet)

What will Kerry say about this now?

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Pentagon briefing on the Al Qaqaa story: On April 13, 2003 the explosives were destroyed and disposed of by US military forces. (no link available yet)

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why is there that video of soldiers entering the compound and handling the explosives on April 18th, 2003?

Plus, I thought your argument was that Saddam got rid of them. This is awesome. Are you simultaneously arguing that they weren't there when we showed up and that we destroyed them?

[GWB]

What was destroyed may be only the remainder of a much larger cache. As with all breaking news, we will have to let the full details get out, I just wanted you all to know that Kerry's reckless accusations against American soldiers is coming back to bite him.

[elwoodblues]

The KSTP reporters filmed the explosives after that. Just heard it on the radio from the actual reporter who was there. All the tapes have a later date as do the notes of the journalists involved.

Story (http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3748.html?cat=1)

Highlights : "The news crew was with soldiers from the 101st Airborne division on April 18, 2003 when they checked out the bunkers at or near Al-Qaqaa. Inside those bunkers, they found a variety of explosives."

[SinCityGuy]

Sounds like the Bush administration doesn't know what the hell is going on, either.

Let's see. President Bush says the explosives were possibly removed by Saddam's forces before the invasion.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld entered the debate Thursday, suggesting the 377 tons of explosives were taken away before U.S. forces arrived, saying any large effort to loot the material afterward would have been detected.

And last, but certainly not least, John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, who said he believed Russian special-forces personnel, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material from the Al-Qaqaa facility. Shaw said he believed the munitions were moved to Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 invasion.

Oops.

[GWB]

More from the briefing:

400,000 tons destroyed.
destroyed more than 1000 times the amount that is in question.
We are putting out facts, but we don't have definitive conclusions.
In the last day or so they learned that units arrived in early April, and we met by Iraqi forces inside the complex
US forces described seeing ammunitions everywhere in the country.
Some units were assigned to remove weapons.
Don't expect anyone to conclude that the universe of weapons that press is interested in will all be addressed by this briefing.

[JimBob2232]

Nobody knows the facts (including the administration im afraid), which is why is POSITIVELY ABSURD for anyone to start making false accusations of a sitting president. Get a shovel mr kerry, you're going to need it

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Highlights : "The news crew was with soldiers from the 101st Airborne division on April 18, 2003 when they checked out the bunkers at or near Al-Qaqaa. Inside those bunkers, they found a variety of explosives."


[/ QUOTE ]

The witness reported to the 101st Airborne for destruction duty on April 13th, but testified that the destruction was not complete until June 2003. So the KSTP video is consistent with the timeline.

It will take time for all details to be nailed down. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody knows the facts (including the administration im afraid), which is why is POSITIVELY ABSURD for anyone to start making false accusations of a sitting president.

[/ QUOTE ] quit being so naive, thats how politics work.

[JimBob2232]

I am not being naive, but I need to KNOW the facts before I can start assessing blame (or credit). It appears like we did the right thing here, and protected the weapons, but have a giant communication problem and people high up in the administration do not know exactly what happened.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
quit being so naive, thats how politics work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry should be held responsible for calling the US military "incompetent" without the facts. He is much too quick to blame the USA whenever some liberal MSM outlet throws out an unsubstantiated story.

October Surprise Backfires Big. Kerry gambled, Kerry lost, and unfairly smeared the US military in the process.

[JimBob2232]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry lost, and unfairly smeared the US military in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm..wish it was only the first time he did this

[anatta]

Unless you post a link, I view this is just more bullshit.

The last news from the Pentagon is they search their ariel archives (I am sure the have withheld post invasion), and they got 2 vehicles parked outside a bunker. They released this, in an attempt to show what? Since its clear they didn't have loading of weapons, they said that "oh we are just trying to show, you know, that Saddam had access, I mean look, parked vehicles!!" and if right wingers want to hang their hats on this and run with it on the "internets" then so be it.

You would think they would remember that, oh yeah, we destroyed that stuff.

WE GOT A VIDEO TAPE!

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
WE GOT A VIDEO TAPE!

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. I watched the video tape of the news broadcast. They couldn't even tell us where they were. They didn't know. They knew they were near it, but they don't know if they were at or south of the said base. Does anyone know if their is another dump directly south?


Iraq = Poweder Keg


But I'm thinking odds are it was Al-Qaqaa, but I found if very curious that KTSP repeatedly stated over and over that they didn't know if it was or not.

[W00lygimp]

I've got the link
the link won't fully function by clicking so your going to have to copy and paste it to view.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137017,00.html

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not being naive, but I need to KNOW the facts before I can start assessing blame (or credit).

[/ QUOTE ]

Memo from Human Resources Department:

This is to officially inform you that you have absolutely no aptitude for a career in politics. Please pursue alternative career paths.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you post a link, I view this is just more bullshit.


[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently you don't understand the concept of breaking news. A live Pentagon Briefing may not appear in web searches right away, it takes a little time. Being notified of the breaking news allows you to go to media (TV, web pages) to check on it. If you don't want to, then just wait a while and more information will be posted in the thread.

[shummie]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not being naive, but I need to KNOW the facts before I can start assessing blame (or credit). It appears like we did the right thing here, and protected the weapons, but have a giant communication problem and people high up in the administration do not know exactly what happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it enough to criticize the administration for not knowing the facts? I know war is a crazy time and all, but what I would say is THIS stockpile of explosives needs to be handled with care... I deduce that since no one knows what happened there, the issue wasn't handled with care. And don't come back and say that someone lower down the totem pole than the administration handled it, because that's not good enough for me. Someone higher up should have been concerned, and I don't think it would take so long for the true story to trickle its way to the top if someone lower down the pole did the right thing.

I’m not as adamant about the issue as the tone of the previous paragraph would suggest. I’m just trying to paraphrase the criticism that the democrats should be giving.


.Jason

[LinusKS]

GWB, you don't ever get tired of being wrong, do you?

What's amazing about this whole thing, is that for all those years, those dangerous weapons were under IAEA seal, and protected by the United Nations.

Bush takes over, and loses track of them within a year.

What a sorry, sorry job he's done.

And what's his reaction?

Blame Kerry, blame the troops, blame the media. As long as the President doesn't have to take responsibility for screwing up (again).

[anatta]

The video tape has been postively id by those intimately familiar with the site. That you are trying to say its not al cocka or whatever shows your head is in the sand. Nobody says it isn't the site, everybody says it is. It shows the explosives, clearly marked, which have been positively id by those intimately familiar with the weapons. It shows the "seal", a seal placed only on those bunkers containing said weapons that were positively id upon entering the site. You people are sick for not believing your own eyes.

Its not just the tape. There are Iraqi witnesses that work for the government now, they witnessed the looting. I understand the need to cloud this issues and it is damaging to the President. But at some point, with authentic tapes, eye witnesses, you have to reach a conclusion.

I mean its like trying to convince me that the Red Sox are not world champs. I saw it on TV. Yeah, but the Red Sox have lost a lot of game in the past. Millions of people saw it. Yeah, but the Yankees were up 3-0, look at this newpaper from a few weeks ago. It seems unlikely that they would come back. Yet we have the tape. Yet we have the witnesses.

[anatta]

From the NY Times:

"The videotape , taken by KSTP-TV, an ABC affiliate in Minneapolis-St. Paul, shows troops breaking into a bunker and opening boxes and examining barrels. Many of the containers are marked "explosive." One box is marked "Al Qaqaa State Establishment," apparently a shipping label from a manufacture."


I guess it was probably moved from Al Qaqaa to this other place where the video was taken which was no doubt more suitable for storage of weapons then the umm, weapons storage complex at Al Qaqaa. Or no, the label is an advertisemnent for Al Qaqaa.

Please spare me the usual knee jerk attack on the NYT, I think they can translate a label. In fact, there is a picture. It shows the label. Its in English. It says what they says.

[anatta]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/politics/29bomb.html



"The photographs are consistent with what I know of Al Qaqaa," said David A. Kay, a former American official who led the recent hunt in Iraq for unconventional weapons and visited the vast site. "The damning thing is the seals. The Iraqis didn't use seals on anything. So I'm absolutely sure that's an I.A.E.A. seal."

One weapons expert said the videotape and some of the agency's photographs of the HMX stockpiles "were such good matches it looked like they were taken by the same camera on the same day."

Independent experts said several other factors - the geography; the number of bunkers; the seals on some of the bunker doors; the boxes, crates and barrels similar to those seen by weapon inspectors - confirm that the videotape was taken at Al Qaqaa.

"There's not another place that you would mistake it for," said Dean Staley, the KSTP reporter, who now works in Seattle

On Thursday, a top Iraqi official said the interim government had spoken to witnesses who said the material was still at Al Qaqaa at the time Baghdad fell.

[texaspimp]

I am interested to know, those of you who think the President didn't secure the site, what do you think of the comments made by the Major who was actually at this site?

No spin, no caustic responses, just your real (and objective if possible) opinions on his comments.

[W00lygimp]

I think Kerry dug himself a hole he wont recover from before the election. He was quick to jump to conclusions and blame Bush, when he turned out to be relying on mis-information. Ironically, this is the SAME thing he has been criticizing Bush about over the Iraqi Freedom.

[elwoodblues]

I honestly think his comments refer to things that happened before the tape. Someone else posted that the destruction took a long time and the tape was made during the destruction. That might make some sense, though it doesn't comport with the what the reporter says and the fact that the bunker still had a seal.

[ QUOTE ]
I am interested to know, those of you who think the President didn't secure the site

[/ QUOTE ]

I am 100% certain that the president didn't secure the site. Whether or not the major did is a different question /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[PITTM]

and without all the details we can be 100% sure that this DID happen...seriously...

rj

[PITTM]

you should be held responsible for believing ever news story immediately after it comes off the presses. how about you wait till you DO know all the details and then make arguments.

rj

[W00lygimp]

Wow you can criticize Bush without the facts, but we can't criticize Kerry for criticizing Bush without the facts even though the facts present point in Bush's direction? How [censored] hypocritical.
Theres no evidence that the explosives were looted.
But hell you can criticize the president without evidence.
THeres evidence that the US military destroyed the explosives.
But hey WE ARENT USING ALL THE FACTS?
stfu ass

[elwoodblues]

I thought you gave up on this board. I seem to recall two recent posts saying so...I am probably just misinformed.

[W00lygimp]

But you can make arguments without knowing all the details?
Again your a hypocritical [censored].

[texaspimp]

Exactly Elwood!

I say this whether Bush, Kerry, Clinton, Eisenhower, Roosevelt (Teddy!), or Lincoln was President. It is political spin to say, "The President didn't secure the site(s)". The President must rely on his military personnel to run the war. The President must rely on his military personnel to let him know if they need more troops, equipment, etc.. A President who micro-manages a conflict (Johnson) will doom his military's efforts, IMHO.

If the military chain of command asks for support and the President does not give, then he SHOULD be held accountable.

I am interested in vulturesrow's opinion on this concept.

Thanks for the genuine reply Elwood! Others are appreciated.

[W00lygimp]

Texaspimp I think elwood was trying to say that the President is still responsible for not securing the site. He is trying to say that the President [censored] up (which he didn't) and that the major saved his ass.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]

Kerry should be held responsible for calling the US military "incompetent" without the facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, GWB. You're wrong (again).

It's Bush who's trying to lay the blame off on the troops.

Another Bush surrogate, former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, traded attacks over the explosives with Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards, after Giuliani discussed them on the "Today" show on NBC. "No matter how you try to blame it on the president the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there," Giuliani said on the program. "Did they search carefully enough or didn't they search carefully enough? We don't know."

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2498716,00.html

Bush's new Motto: Support the war, blame the troops.

[PITTM]

how was that hypocritical at all?

rj

[shummie]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly Elwood!

I say this whether Bush, Kerry, Clinton, Eisenhower, Roosevelt (Teddy!), or Lincoln was President. It is political spin to say, "The President didn't secure the site(s)". The President must rely on his military personnel to run the war. The President must rely on his military personnel to let him know if they need more troops, equipment, etc.. A President who micro-manages a conflict (Johnson) will doom his military's efforts, IMHO.

If the military chain of command asks for support and the President does not give, then he SHOULD be held accountable.

I am interested in vulturesrow's opinion on this concept.

Thanks for the genuine reply Elwood! Others are appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

My response to this "the president doesn't do everything in a war" line of argument is that the missing explosives is still an example of the kind of thing that happens when we go to war too early without enough planning. It was President Bush who made the final decision to go to war (too early and without enough planning), and now we run into situations like this.

- Jason

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
My response to this "the president doesn't do everything in a war" line of argument is that the missing explosives is still an example of the kind of thing that happens when we go to war too early without enough planning. It was President Bush who made the final decision to go to war (too early and without enough planning), and now we run into situations like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah well guess what. It's probably also the kind of thing that happens when you go to war at the right time and with plenty of planning, too.

[wacki]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_of_war

"Fog of war" is the name given to the lack of knowledge that occurs during a war. Most importantly it refers to each side's uncertainty about the enemy's capabilities and plans, but it also includes the chaos that can occur in one's own forces, for instance when a unit misinterprets its orders, or takes a wrong turn and becomes lost.

Much of the modern military's technological efforts, under the rubric of command and control, seek to reduce the fog of war, although the 2003 invasion of Iraq demonstrated that even the most advanced technology does not eliminate it.

[iblucky4u2]

By your logic Bush really screwed up by not having all the facts about wmds etc. before invading iraq.

Nice flip flop.

[SinCityGuy]

Along those lines, what is your administration going to do about mending fences with Russia for blaming them on moving the explosives to Syria?

[Boopotts]

He'll probably say that only an administration headed by someone has pififully stupid as George Bush could destroy that much explosive and not know they did it.