Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

The point is that it’s yet another intelligence failure for the Bush administration. Whether the explosives were there when the troops arrived or not, Bush and Co should have known they were supposed to be there. They should have been monitoring the site from the air, like they were all the supposed WMD sites, to make sure the material wasn’t being moved out of the country.

As Kerry pointed out, it’s one thing to be mistaken in what you say. It’s another to be mistaken in starting a war.

If the explosives were gone before we got there they disappeared under the UN’s watch of Saddam Hussein.

That’s a big leap, Eric. Let’s look at the facts about the situation before the invasion.

The [IAEA] agency first placed a seal over Al-Qaqaa storage bunkers holding the explosives in 1991 as part of U.N. sanctions that ordered the dismantlement of Iraq’s nuclear program after the Gulf War.

IAEA inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003 when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers, Fleming said. Inspectors visited the site again in March 2003, but didn’t view the explosives because the seals were not broken, she said.

Nuclear agency experts pulled out of Iraq just before the U.S.-led invasion later that month [ie, March 2003], and have not yet been able to return for general inspections despite ElBaradei’s repeated urging that they be allowed to finish their work.

60 Minutes Correspondent Ed Bradley reports the U.N. says it warned the U.S. government the munitions site might be looted shortly after the invasion.

They were there in 1991 They were there in January 2003. They were almost certainly there in March 2003 - just before UN inspectors left in advance of the US invasion. The UN warned the US about their presence and that they should be secured.

And yet somehow, in the course of the invasion - in the first few weeks of the invasion - this site was looted. As were other sites containing dangerous “dual use” materials, which again the US was aware of in advance of the invasion, but failed to secure.

What exactly was the point of the invasion again Eric? to make us safer, right? How exactly does it make us safer to take dangerous materials out of known, watched locations, and put them into the hands of looters and terrorists?

Kerry is bankrupt of any authority to criticize this President.

In the first debate Kerry said Bush was wrong to start focusing on Iraq when we hadn’t caught Osama Bin Laden.

And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein. debates.org

That’s funny because here’s what he said before Tora Bora:

I have no doubt, I’ve never had any doubt — and I’ve said this publicly — about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis? slate.msn.com

Proving once again that this entire campaign is based on lies and an unerring willingness to put short term political gain above the security and unity of this country.

I have one more comment . What a tangled web we weave when you try to deceive . The truth always sets you free . You do not need to take cheap shots or lies to bolster their cause and to fit their agenda .

You’re making leaps again, Eric. To say that the quote you use is Kerry’s acknowledgement of a need to invade Iraq is like saying he wanted to invade the entire Muslim world. Saying he’s concerned about Saddam Hussein isn’t the same as saying we need to depose him or that he has a connection to 9/11. — Unless there’s more of the quote that you haven’t shared?

So Eric, how can we blame this on Clinton.

actually, the republican attempt to shift the blame for this discovery has been decisively discredited by the embed reporter travelling with the 101st Airborne Division — the unit who first arrived at that faciliy:

MSNBC:

Amy Robach: And it’s still unclear exactly when those explosives disappeared. Here to help shed some light on that question is Lai Ling. She was part of an NBC news crew that traveled to that facility with the 101st Airborne Division back in April of 2003. Lai Ling, can you set the stage for us? What was the situation like when you went into the area?

Lai Ling Jew: When we went into the area, we were actually leaving Karbala and we were initially heading to Baghdad with the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. The situation in Baghdad, the Third Infantry Division had taken over Baghdad and so they were trying to carve up the area that the 101st Airborne Division would be in charge of. As a result, they had trouble figuring out who was going to take up what piece of Baghdad. They sent us over to this area in Iskanderia. We didn’t know it as the Qaqaa facility at that point but when they did bring us over there we stayed there for quite a while. We stayed overnight, almost 24 hours. And we walked around, we saw the bunkers that had been bombed, and that exposed all of the ordinances that just lied dormant on the desert.

AR: Was there a search at all underway or did a search ensue for explosives once you got there during that 24-hour period?

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.

AR: And there was no talk of securing the area after you left. There was no discussion of that?

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.

Once again, your deliberate attempt to deflect criticism from the president shows just how blindly partisan you are.

The president supposedly went to war in Iraq to make us safer from terrorists, and now the very terrorists (who weren’t in Iraq prior to the war) may have access to over 350 TONS of explosives.

It couldn’t be any worse if Rummy had handed it over to them personally.

How has bush made us safer?

William, Alejo,

Whether the explosives were there when the troops arrived or not, Bush and Co should have known they were supposed to be there.

…The UN warned the US about their presence and that they should be secured.

That’s exactly what Kerry’s whole campaign comes down to, “He should have known.”

Kerry has the temerity to advocate the use of force and the threat of the use of force, but is never there when the hard decisions need to be made. His hawkish statements are more of a gimmick than anything else. Like voting for the $87 billion before voting against it.

We live in a world of possibilities my friends. Kerry’s ‘principled’ use of this NY Times article puts him and the NY Times in the same discredited forged documents category as Dan Rather.

Remember: “Integrity. Integrity. Integrity.”

cali_,

#1, I don’t see a link to your source.

This account is saying that they did search and did not find anything. Moreover it says the IAEA last inspected the facility in March 2003.

The Iraqi government reported an estimated 350 tons of missing explosives Oct. 10 to the International Atomic Energy Agency, a U.N. monitoring group that last inventoried the facility in January 2003.

During that visit, the U.N. inspectors counted the munitions and equipment and tagged them with IAEA seals that indicate they are “dual use,” or have conventional-weapons applications. These munitions were generally permitted to remain in Iraq. In contrast, “single use” munitions with nuclear applications were destroyed or rendered harmless.

The IAEA returned to the site two months later, in March 2003, and confirmed the equipment it had tagged was still there.

However, coalition forces found no evidence of the weapons in question when they first arrived at the sprawling Al-Quaqaa facility, 30 miles south of Baghdad, about April 10, 2003, according to a defense official.

The troops searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings, finding some weapons and explosive material, but nothing close to the quantity reported missing by the Iraqi government, and none with IAEA seals, he said.

In an Oct. 10, 2004, letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed J. Abbas, general director of the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology’s Planning and Following Up Directorate, reported that 195 tons of high-melting explosive, 141 tons of rapid-detonating explosive, and 6 tons of pentaerythrite tetranitrate, another type of explosive commonly known as PETN, “registered under the IAEA custody were lost” after April 9, 2003.

Abbas blamed the loss on “the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security.”

However, the defense official said there’s no verification that looting ever occurred at the site. Citing lack of accountability over the materials between the March IAEA visit and April 10, he said it’s possible that regime loyalists or other groups emptied the facility before coalition forces arrived in Baghdad. defenselink.mil

sorry, my source was MSNBC:

here

my point is, in the rush to baghdad they neglected to secure weapons munitions. mission accomplished indeed.

That’s exactly what Kerry’s whole campaign comes down to, “He should have known.”

It’s more than that, actually. He should have listened: in this case to the UN inspectors, in other cases to soldiers that told him supplies were short or that more soldiers would be needed. He should have planned, for something other than parades and roses, so that the invasion would actually accomplish its goals. He should have acted, when memos titled “Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly” and “Bin Laden Determined to Strike US” were sent to him and his direct appointee, Tenet, in summer 2001. There are a lot of “should haves” for Mr Mission Accomplished.

Kerry has the temerity to advocate the use of force and the threat of the use of force, but is never there when the hard decisions need to be made.

What exactly was the hard decision here? It’s hard to make a decision that is turns out, in retrospect, to be a disaster? Those are the easy decisions, Eric. The hard ones involve looking at facts before you decide.

Kerry looked at the facts available on Iraq and made a decision that, now that we know the full story, was right. Bush made a decision that has cost hundreds of American lives, billions of dollars, and was wrong. I’m sorry, Eric, but cheating on oil-for-food is just not the same thing as the mushroom cloud we were warned of if we ignored Iraq.

I’ve seen some others say that “the left” (I guess me) have been “focusing on the outcome, not the process” - that Bush’s decisions basically seemed like a good idea at the time. I’m sorry, but this argument just doesn’t seem compelling to me. Is Bush going to change his decision-making process the next four years? Start looking at facts instead of trusting his instincts? If not, how can we expect the outcomes to be any better?

You’re taking it as an article of faith that Kerry won’t use force when it’s necessary, on the basis of a protest vote against Bush funding the war without rolling back tax cuts. Fine - I admit, he has no proven track record for starting wars, if that’s what you’re looking for. But you’re also taking it as an article of faith that Bush will use force effectively, when he needs to - ie in a way that will actually, say, locate WMD, or OBL. For that, Bush has no track record.

Citing lack of accountability over the materials between the March IAEA visit and April 10, he said it’s possible that regime loyalists or other groups emptied the facility before coalition forces arrived in Baghdad.

And if this was the case, Eric, don’t you think this “emptying” was a direct result of the fact that we invaded? do are you saying the IAEA should have been guarding the materials while our troops advanced?

Eric, even if you’re right (which is doubtful - the “counter-evidence” that the explosives weren’t there in April 2003 has already started dissipating into a cloud of Drudge-dust), it’s not a good story for Bush. In fact, no matter how you slice it, it’s a massive disaster.

Even in your hopeful picture, you’re asking us to accept that Saddam took 380 tons of high explosive and slipped it away in order to use it to supply an Iraqi insurgency and international terrorists for decades to come. And you call that an exoneration? I call it an example of Saddam outwitting President Bush. I call it a national humiliation.

The Duelfer report did, in fact, conclude that such a plan of weapon redistribution was part of Saddam’s war plan. Was the Al Qaqaa site an example of Saddam’s strategically outwitting President Bush, or simply an example of Bush’s military incompetance? What a choice.

-Cf

Once again, truth is the real casualty in the left’s war on the American Administration.

But we can always count on a Swift right-wing response team to bring out the truth. ;)

You’re taking it as an article of faith that Kerry won’t use force when it’s necessary, on the basis of a protest vote against Bush funding the war without rolling back tax cuts. Fine - I admit, he has no proven track record for starting wars, if that’s what you’re looking for.

Two words William: “global test”. From all indications, and despite his denials, Kerry will hand over our national security decisions to the UN and Europe. How can he ever act unilaterally after the arguments he has made against Bush for acting without enough world support? Does he just not mean it? He has said that the death of a US soldier means more if he dies in a UN operation rather than a unilateral one. Those are not the words of an American President. Can you imagine Ike saying that? Or Truman? Or Roosevelt? I can’t.

But you’re also taking it as an article of faith that Bush will use force effectively, when he needs to - ie in a way that will actually, say, locate WMD, or OBL. For that, Bush has no track record.

I disagree. Bush has used force effectively. During the invasion the left was needlessly complaining about how we couldn’t win this, how it would be streetfighting in Bagdhad, house to house. Oh the hand wringing! I recall that we were botching the invasion in some eyes. after a brilliant military victory we had to occupy the country. Rough? Yes. Impossible, a failure after one year? Hardly. The cost too high? I don’t think so. Militarily and historically the costs of this war have been on the low side.

What would Kerry have done? Seriously, would Kerry have begun sending troops to the borders of Iraq to threaten the use of force? Probably not. That might be too unilateral, better to get approval first. What we know for sure is that after the Bush administration made it a priority Kerry followed. And then when the political winds for him changed he changed his position.

Kerry’s solution was more resolutions, more allies, more diplomacy, more time… He voted against the first gulf for Pete’s sake because it was a rush to war without enough allies!!!! He has never had the intention of actually carrying out his threats when he says he supports it. At some point you lose respect and threats do not work. The threat of force is only as good as your intention to carry it out.

If the president had shown the patience to go through another round of resolution, to sit down with those leaders, say, “What do you need, what do you need now, how much more will it take to get you to join us?” we’d be in a stronger place today. debates.org

Chris,

I disagree, a national humiliation would be a Kerry Presidency when he meets Jacque Chirac to apologize for the beligerency of the US. Kind of like when he met with the Viet Cong to assure them we will surrender.

You’re false choices here do not make any rational sense.

#1 A President Kerry would never be able to use force against Iraq.

If Kerry had been President we would have made our threats, Saddam would play Kerry and the UN like a fiddle back and forth and we would eventually have backed down under pressure from the bribed in the UN.

No WMD would be found and sanctions would be removed, leaving Saddam in power and free to begin working on weapons again.

KERRY: Not necessarily be in power,but here’s what I’ll say about the $87 billion.

I made a mistake in the way I talk about it. He made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is a worse decision? debates.org

By the way, Kerry didn’t make a mistake in the way he talked about his vote against the $87 billion dollars for the troops, he made a mistake in using the troops to make a protest vote about tax cuts. That’s not a slip ogf the tongue, it’s a slip of judgement.

#2 Kerry’s charge is that the troops failed to guard 380 tons of explosives. If they weren’t there when our troops fought their way to it, that pretty much negates Kerry’s whole point.

There is said to be upwards of 600,000 tons of munitions that were scattered and moved all over Iraq, much of it hidden on purpose as part of Saddam’s war plan for use by Fedeyeen Saddam.

I don’t have an exact figure but I know we may have already destroyed 200,000-300,000 tons of those munitions already.

Good try Eric.

These people you are arguing with have so much hate for Bush and their heads stuck so far up Kerry’s @$$ that they can’t even think straight.
These are the same people that bash War Veterans that don’t like Kerry and support Moore, the NY Times, and CBS.
Then complain when a news station has a Bush supporter on for an interview, even when a Kerry clone is there too.
They are the ones who would let Kerry convince them that the sky is green, while saying you are brainwashed by Bush.
Keep up the good work Eric. Some of us agree with you.

Watch Blog Manager,
It had to be said.

Eric, new reports from the very source your people base things on reveal that this supposed search was nothing more than a pitstop for the tired forces, that this examination was nothing more than a handful of the soldiers looking at munitions that were visible in bombed out portions of the facility.

These soldiers did not thoroughly search the entire facility, and Brit Hume, FOXnews reporter, did in fact see materials still under seal, unlooted, about that same time. The inspectors, hightailing out of there just ahead of our armies were the ones leaving the seals.

CNN has done the equivalent of a Page 20 retraction, shamefully enough.

The truth of the matter is, These soldiers weren’t inspectors, weren’t there to be inspectors, didn’t stay long enough to look through the whole place, and besides, it wasn’t even their mission. This was April 10th.

A real inspection crew would not show up until May 24. In short, it took 44 days for Bush to get around to sending people to really search the place, much less secure it. That figures to be about 8.6 tons a day. That is, if they chose to move it at that pace. One thing is for sure, though. By that time, the looters that Bush and Rumsfeld had allowed to run free, because “freedom is messy”, had picked the place clean of the explosives.

44 days, Eric, and that is just one example of ammunition Bush’s cheapskate invasion plan gave to our enemies. Three quarters of a million tons of enough explosive to blow up twenty cars a day for 200 years. Bush was told you would need more soldiers. Now he complains about winning too fast, about catastrophic success.

The only way you aren’t prepared to secure a nation you’ve just successfully invaded is that you don’t have the army, and you don’t have the plan in place to do what circumstances have dictated you have to do.

Eric, I have been trying to tell you this for the last half year, but I’ll tell you this again: Optimism and crushed dissent will not win this war, especially when actions and tactics have not done what needs to be done. Claiming a success will not create a success where one isn’t there before. Denying a problem will not solve it. It is time to get into office people who are not politically shackled to a losing strategy.

Nice post stuck…

Two questions Eric.

1) After the fall of Saddam, how many weeks did it take them to verify the status of these explosives?

2) How many more troops did the commander, of the first unit into the area, say he would have needed to search and secure all the ammo dumps he came across?

Two questions that go to the very heart of Bush’s plan to prevent Iraq’s WMD from passing into the hands of terrorists.

> There is said to be upwards of 600,000 tons of
> munitions that were scattered and moved all over
> Iraq, much of it hidden on purpose as part of
> Saddam’s war plan for use by Fedeyeen Saddam.

So you admit that Saddam outsmarted Bush?

-Cf

Our troops were kinda busy during the war. The 101 checked the facility and found nothing. The NBC embedded reporter talked about that on April 10, 2003. A closer inspection confirmed that lack of the explosives in May 2003.

Nobody knows when the stuff was moved. It is likely that Saddam did it before the troops got there. (and yes, Saddam may have outsmarted us in this case. He was evil, but a real surivor) After all, Mohamed El Baradei told the U.N. Security Council one month before the allied invasion that Iraq had moved some of its highly explosive HMX from the Al Qaqaa site. (The United Nations could not verify Iraqi claims that it used the explosives for commercial purposes.)

I guess Saddam was dangerous after all and maybe sanctions and inspections weren’t working that well. Is this a serious development? Of course it is. There are tons of things we have found and some we haven’t. Maybe even the elusive WMD. But this would not be a new story. All the facts were available in May of last year. Why now?

It was probably meant as an October surprise. Unfortunately, the NYT jumped the gun. 60 Minutes was going to feature the story this coming Sunday. It would have been too late for the story to be debunked before the election. As it is now, this looks to be unraveling faster than Dan Rather’s forged document fiasco. Of course, maybe it was Karl Rove, who surreptitiously set the trap that Kerry fell into when he came out with his ad on the subject less than 24 hours after the story broke. Smart move.

Interesting back and forth. I wasn’t there so I have no idea whether the weapons were there in 2003 or during the invasion. But they are missing aren’t they? I wonder who has them ?

Does this fall under ” all in the plan”
or “one more screw up”?

all i want to know is WHO was supposed to keep on top of this….

if it was the military, why didn’t they…

if it was the administration…what happened boys?

politics aside here kids….WE NEED TO FIND THOSE EXPLOSIVES BEFORE THEY GET USED!

honestly…eric…sometimes i think you write these posts just to get people shouting at eachother….

you are a pundit….and you do your job well….and your friends in red all rabble around you yelling at how terrible the other side is…great for you.

and the other side….c’mon dems…we are at war….yes, this administration seems to never want to accept blame for anything….but we have to look beyond that for a bit because….. lets all say it together….

there are 380 TONS OF MISSING EXPLOSIVES!

that right kids….we can argue politics later…for now lets find those munitions, and prevent them from getting used.

By the way, I was wondering if any one read Alawii’s speech, recently. I guess Karl couldn’t make it to Bagdhad to help out. I think there were words like incompetence, poor planning sending Iraqi troops out unarmed.

Is this the same guy that was in D.C talking about the roaring success in Iraq?

Has anyone proven that any of these explosives have been used? If the terrorists have them, and haven’t used them, and they are so powerful, what are they saving them for? They have plenty. Don’t think they’d run out too fast.

Weren’t some of those bunkers bombed at the start of the war?

Bugcrazy wrote:
> Has anyone proven that any of these
> explosives have been used?

Good question. I can’t imagine that any of it’s just sitting around being used as decoration, though.

> Weren’t some of those bunkers bombed at
> the start of the war?

Yes, several of the articles have pointed out that a couple of the bunkers at Al Qaqaa were indeed blown up. But the vast majority were intact and looted.

-Cf

Okay then. We can agree they wouldn’t be used for decorations.
I saw the film of the bunker with the seal on it. I tried to count the locks. Not that it really matters how many locks.
Did the inspectors that discovered them missing find the locks laying around. The seal?
I can’t imagine that looters would bother to take those things with them.
If the bunkers were bombed, the locks would have been blown to bits.

Stephen,

Eric, I have been trying to tell you this for the last half year, but I’ll tell you this again: Optimism and crushed dissent will not win this war, especially when actions and tactics have not done what needs to be done. Claiming a success will not create a success where one isn’t there before. Denying a problem will not solve it. It is time to get into office people who are not politically shackled to a losing strategy.

And pessimism will not make it a defeat either.

Forgive me but I cannot understand the view that invading Iraq has been a complete disaster and defeat for the United States. The only way to ensure it becomes a defeat is to insist that it be so. The Iraq war has actually been one of the more succesful wars of it’s kind. We have lost fewer men and it has cost less than any other invasion and occupation that I can think of.

Let’s pick a war Stephen. Any war. I can do exactly what democrats have done and point out every road bump, every misstep, and every imperfect execution of plan and blow it up into the same sort of disaster that Kerry purports it to be.

We can start with the first Gulf War which Kerry repudiated in the same way. In fact, with much of the same phrases! Such as a rush to war. Not enough allies. Are we ready for the body bags. UN sanctions should be given time to work. (While Saddam occupies Kuwait.) The US would bear a disproportionate burden of the casualties. Kerry also wanted to “give Hussein ‘a little more time’ to withdraw before launching the war.”

Can you imagine someone saying that the deaths of US soldiers mean more when they die in a UN mission rather than in a unilateral US one? Can you imagine someone saying of the battle of Okinawa that the loss of life and sacrifice was not worth it, that it was all for a mistake as has been said of the casualties of Iraq?

All this story of missing weapons tells me is that John Kerry’s confidence is in the IAEA more than in our armed forces. As an aside to Chris as well, weapons are hidden in schools, outhouses, barns, hospitals etc. all over the country. 600,000 tons worth.

I was serving as a [identifying information removed by the Kerry Spot] staff member during the time in question. The Commander on the site had complete real time intelligence on what to expect and possibly find at the Al-QaQaa depot. The ordinance in question was not found when teams were sent in to inspect and secure the area. When this information was relayed, Operational plans were adjusted and the unit moved forward. Had the ordinance in question been discovered, a security team would have been left in place. nationalreview.com

There is no broad popular national Iraqi insurgency threatening to take over the country or prolong this conflict into a Vietnam. It is not spiraling out of control. Democrats sure want it to be, but that does not make it so.

Jack, you haven’t been keeping up. The debunking has been debunked. The 101 didn’t “check” the facility. The NBC reporter has explained that they didn’t really “check” anything. They were just passing through.

-Cf

> As an aside to Chris as well, weapons are
> hidden in schools, outhouses, barns,
> hospitals etc. all over the country.
> 600,000 tons worth.

So, um, I repeat (and you will avoid answering, as usual): Do you admit that Saddam Hussein outwitted George Bush?

-Cf

> There is no broad popular national
> Iraqi insurgency

Holy cow! Next thing you know you guys are going to tell us there’s no such thing as a geostationary satellite!

-Cf

Someone tell me why the UN inspectors only had the power to put locks on the bunkers and not to remove the explosives completely?
Were these a type of weapon Saddam was ‘allowed’ to have?
If he was allowed to have them why were they locked up?
If he wasn’t ‘allowed’ to have them why were they not removed or destroyed?

There is no broad popular national Iraqi insurgency threatening to take over the country or prolong this conflict into a Vietnam. It is not spiraling out of control. Democrats sure want it to be, but that does not make it so.

That’s one I’ll keep on my hard drive. I hope you have plenty of seasoning when you finally wake up and have to eat those words, Eric.

Jack-
Yes, they were busy! That’s the whole point! They weren’t there to inspect the place. They didn’t stay long enough to make the searches thorough.

The point of bringing Brit Hume into this is to confirm that people who did see the material saw that it had not yet been moved, that it was still under seal.

This was not a smart move in the long term, because now the truth has confirmed, not just told.

Eric-
There was strong opposition to the Gulf War. Did we lose? No, we won. Public opinion went the way of the war.

You can’t wish a war into success. You can inspire the best from your soldiers, you can persuade people that the war is worthwhile, but both things strongly depend on the facts of what’s going on, and neither can be sustained in their absence.

Kerry had his opinions on the first Gulf War, and he expressed them. He was a veteran of the last great ground war. His views represented the views of many of that time, not yet given confidence by the new army’s win in the Middle East. Was he wrong. Yes. Was he unjustified in his worries? No. America had not yet tested the capabilities it built up, post Vietnam, for the heavy armor battle that never came in Central Europe against the Soviets. If you’re asking whether Kerry was weak about that, you might as well ask whether Reagan was weak about Syria invading Lebanon.

When your president had a case for war, this time around, when our interests were at stake, Kerry showed up and he did what he thought best. He gave Bush the authority to go to war on a set of simple conditions. That he take things with the UN as far as they could go in protecting us, and that he act in the interests of protecting us against the terrorists that were already supposed to be there, just waiting to take a WMD to an American city.

I think Kerry shares with all of us the convinction that regardless of who commands our soldiers, their sacrifice means more when our Commander in Chief uses them to move towards a solid, coherent goal, when the military mistakes that inevitably get soldiers killed aren’t made chronic in the institution. I think you’re simply UN-baiting, putting words in Kerry’s mouth to fit what you, a highly partisan Republican, believe he trully thinks. Thanks, but no thanks, I’ll take the man at his word, not invent new messages any rational person would know he didn’t send.

As far as missing weapons go, when one pound of the High explosives found is enought to destroy a jetliner in midair, three quarters of a million pounds of it, regardless of how much other ammo is out there, is three quarters of a million pounds too many.

The insurgency has been broad enough to lose us several cities across the country.

All things will depend on how strong and how effective the government that gets elected will be, and how much support the people will give it. If you president Bush, in his desire to get things over quickly on his fixed timeline presides over an election the Iraqis put little trust in, this war will come quite aways closer towards our defeat.

A short note, it is interesting to me that it appears that some role refersal is going on now…

Gotta love modern partisan politics.

and the other side….c’mon dems…we are at war….yes, this administration seems to never want to accept blame for anything….but we have to look beyond that for a bit because….. lets all say it together….

there are 380 TONS OF MISSING EXPLOSIVES!

And the sooner George “W for Wrong” Bush is out of office, the sooner the US government will admit that they’re actually missing, and start looking for them - or whats left of them.

rob, Bush isn’t even admitting this is important. Cheney is totally downplaying the incident. Apparently it’s no big deal because it’s just 380 TONS of extremely powerful conventional explosives.

Were these a type of weapon Saddam was ‘allowed’ to have?

bugcrazy, yes. They were dual use explosives used in industry, mining, and excavation. The IAEA had locks and seals on the doors only to keep them from being secretly removed and used for unauthorized purposes. In other words, they were secured and monitored by the IAEA against petty theft, not full-scale looting in the aftermath of a war. That was Bush’s job.

How did the Commander in Chief plan to militarily disarm Iraq without asking, “Hey, what’s the plan for these WMD and munition dumps, after the invasion throws the whole country into chaos?”

But of course, chaos wasn’t part of the plan, was it? It was going to be a cakewalk, the liberated Iraqis would be showering the GIs with bouquets, wine, and cheese, and the country would magically heal itself as soon as we sprinkled some fairy oil on it.

I’ll say it again: None of this is a surprise. Critics of the invasion said from the start there weren’t enough troops in the plan to secure the country. Without security and stability, you can’t rebuild. If you don’t quickly prove to the Iraqis that we’re there to help them - by rebuilding, among other things - they’re going to resent us. This didn’t require a crystal ball, and it isn’t hindsight - just piss-poor planning by otherwise intelligent men and women who should have known better.

Ap,
‘They were dual use explosives used in industry, mining, and excavation.’

Which of those did Iraq use those explosives for and why did they need so much?
If they couldn’t be trusted to monitor their own dual use explosives, why weren’t they removed and brought back as needed?

Rhinehold, could you elaborate upon the role reversal that you alluded to please?

If they couldn’t be trusted to monitor their own dual use explosives, why weren’t they removed and brought back as needed?

I guess because, before Bush invaded Iraq with too few troops to secure them, it was all under control.

I find it hard to believe that everything was ‘under control’ in that country when it came to Saddam and his weapons.
It is my understanding that Saddam had his say on where inspectors could go and what they could actually inspect.
The IAEA said they did not check all the weapons the last time they were there before the start of the war.
Why is it not feasible to think that someone could have moved these weapons between inspections? before the war?
The inspectors visually checked to see if the seals were there.
They did not open the doors and look inside all the bunkers as far as I know.
There just isn’t enough info available yet and I would like to know who the ‘source’ was.
Especially since they chose to go to the NY Times and CBS.

Hmm…seems that the US asked for these explosives to be destroyed way back in 1995. But the UN, in it’s wishy washy way, just weren’t sure if they were dangerous enough.

The chief American weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, told The New York Sun yesterday that in 1995, when he was a member of the U.N. inspections team in Iraq, he urged the United Nations’ atomic watchdog to remove tons of explosives that have since been declared missing.

Mr. Duelfer said he was rebuffed at the time by the Vienna-based agency because its officials were not convinced the presence of the HMX, RDX, and PETN explosives was directly related to Saddam Hussein’s programs to amass weapons of mass destruction.

Instead of accepting recommendations to destroy the stocks, Mr. Duelfer said, the atomic-energy agency opted to continue to monitor them. nysun.com

“This investigation is important, and a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not the person you want as your commander in chief,” said Bush.

Oh the irony!

Joseph says: “Oh the irony!”

I guess that means it’s okay to replace someone who doesn’t have all the facts with someone who doesn’t have all the facts.

Let’s see, bugcrazy:

Accuse an incumbent president with less than certain assertions or drive our nation to war with the same? Yeah, I’d be okay with voting for the former.

Ah, the old “your guy is as bad as my guy” argument. Sorry, bugcrazy, but some of us really would prefer almost any unknown to what we have as the known. And after getting to know Kerry better I am actually pleased to be backing him.

Sorry Alejo and Joe, but you read a lot more into that than I actually meant.
Now that you mention it though.
Why is a man who accuses without facts, without proof, more competent?
In Kerry’s case, is guilty before proven innocent the way he would run this country?
That is how you make it sound.

If almost 400 tons of weapons disappeared in the few months leading up to the Iraq war, do we still insist that Sadam’s regime did not hide their weapons of mass destruction right before the war? Less than one tenth of that amount of biological or chemical munitions would be sufficient to kill millions of Americans.

bugcrazy said Why is a man who accuses without facts, without proof, more competent?

Accusing without facts is a part of the political game. The question is what are the consequences of this. In Bush’s case, our country ran headlong into war. In Kerry’s case, he scored a few political points. It would appear the consequences of the former far outweigh those of the latter.

bugcrazy —

Be careful where you point that thing. Kerry may have made an accusation before all the facts were in, which was foolish. Much less foolish, however, than rushing to war before all the facts are in.

Jim —

I don’t insist anything. Whether there were no WMD’s or there were but are now blowing in the wind the blame still lies with Bush.

Jim Barnhill said If almost 400 tons of weapons disappeared in the few months leading up to the Iraq war, do we still insist that Sadam’s regime did not hide their weapons of mass destruction right before the war?

If our intent was to invade Iraq to contain its alleged arsenal and the weapons still managed to be smuggled out of the country, then where is the legitimacy of invading in the first place?

As I just noted, weapons of mass desturction were probably hidden just before the war and that is more than enough reason to go to war with Sadam. I don’t believe that all those intelligence agencies around the world were wrong. I will never believe what Sadam and his regime say. They are all a bunch of proven liers.

Joe and Alejo,

You two are also so concerned about the treatment of prisoners being held by our country.
Their rights, their treatment, who’s to blame.
How can you be so concerned about that, and defend someone who makes accusations without evidence?
Calling for guilt without any assumption of innocence.
A wanna-be-president should not be going against our own laws of justice.
It’s more than just a campaign stunt or October surprise.

If he becomes president people will be explaining all the time about how he talks about things and never about how he actually does anything.
‘You see, when I talked about it I guess made a mistake when talking about it, but this is what I meant. If I had explained it better you would have understood why I didn’t do anything. Everything is so complicated. Roll me another one.’

bugcrazy —

Some strong words you put out there. It appears — and I repeat, appears — that you’re saying Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are not worth getting worked up about but that Kerry’s accusation concerning munitions is “against our laws of justice.”

First of all, when Kerry cites a news article it’s not exactly “without evidence.” It’s hasty and opportunistic but it’s hardly a crime by any means.

Second — YES, I think it’s worse that our military is torturing and killing people than that Kerry made an accusation about Bush’s execution of the war. Besides that, even if the charge about the high explosives turns out to be meritless there are plenty of other sources, including our own soldiers, who acknowledge that there are many unguarded munitions dumps.

I’m afraid I just don’t follow your logic.

I must reiterate what Alejo said, torturing prisoners of war, even certifiable enemy combatants, is far more reprehensible than campaign exaggerations.

I just don’t understand this whole “Kerry doesn’t have all the facts.” thing. He has all the facts he needs:

FACT: In March of 2003, the IAEA verified that there were 380 tons of high explosives stored at Al Qaqaa.

FACT: Now they’re all gone.

FACT: The IAEA has been talking to the DOD about this for a year.

That’s all the facts I or John Kerry or any reasonable person needs to know to come to the inescapable conclusions that (a) this Administration totally screwed up, and (b) they’ve been hiding this screw up from the American people.

When the stuff was moved is totally irrelevant. Either way, the weapons are most likely in the hands of the insurgents and terrorists, instead of under our control.

Here’s what I’m wondering: Wouldn’t the IAEA have records of when exactly those electronic seals were broken? They ought to know whether or not the site was cleared out by Saddam in preparation for the insurgency or if it was cleared out after the invasion by the insurgents, or both.

-Cf

Cf,
I agree, as a vetern of this country, I can not stand by and say the lose of the 380 tons of ammo which was known to exist was not keep in the view of our military. First sign of any foul play between the time IAEA sealed the compound and our troops took full control should of lead to the total destruction of the compound.

You can blame it on Rumfled or the Generals for the oversight; however, President Bush has to take responsiblity for the fact that it was not done. Like Truman said “The Buck Stops Here.” He wants the job and pay, but don’t want to live up to his duties. Hell, at least Clinton and his father would of.

Chris,

When the stuff was moved is totally irrelevant. Either way, the weapons are most likely in the hands of the insurgents and terrorists, instead of under our control.

Except that if these explosives were so dangerous the UN should have destroyed them when we told them too. Here you see the real problem with the UN and their inspections.

Let me reiterate.

Kerry lied. Again. This whole story was meant to be ridden through to tuesday. Except that once again, Karl Rove fed them some disinformation just like with the CBS’s forged documents. Man, these Democrats are so easily fooled! Now the platform upon which Kerry meant to drone on and on about for the next six days has crumbled beneath him.

The charge is that after US soldiers took possession of the depot, these explosives were stolen. If the explosives were moved before US troops got there Kerry is wrong. They were not stolen. They were moved by the owner— Saddam Hussein. Who would be in power and in possession of these explosives today had Kerry been in charge.

Eric,
Although you are talking about “Boots on the Ground,” Bush took control of the place the moment he told the IAEA to leave Iraq. Failure to ensure the security/total destruction of over 800 tons of high energy explosives should of been one of the top priorities of planning the attack on Iraq. Those commands come straight out of the White House in the real America. Nixon couldn’t even run from that fact.

Well, Cf, I was willing to concede the fact that we don’t know exactly when the material was “liberated” and then play along that Kerry’s attacks were therefore less than credible. But like you said and Henry have pointed out, this still doesn’t give much wiggle-room for interpretation.

The chances that enemy forces moved 377 tons of heavy ordnance out of the Al Qaqaa arms facility after U.S. forces arrived in the area are nearly impossible, said Army Col. David Perkins, who commanded the American troops who took the area during major combat operations in Iraq in 2003. defenselink.mil

What other ‘interpretation’ is there?

Kerry can continue to call the troops liars if he wants but I don’t think that will win him the election.

Eric,
Sounds to me like Kerry thinks Bush didn’t go in soon enough.

Alejo,
You are still saying it is okay to do something that is wrong.
Wrong is wrong no matter how bad it is or who is doing it.
Get my logic now?

Well, Eric, there are still a few different interpretations.

Eric,
You still have failed to show any evidence from March 15, 2003 until April 4, 2003. The Defense Department has that information now. Do you want to bet that the public will see it before Nov. 2nd? It should if our government still belongs to the American People.

Eric-

THE LIBERAL MEDIA IS CONSPIRING WITH THE EVIL KERRY CAMPAIGN! IT’S LIES! ALL LIES!

Do I have your story straight? Good.

Seriously speaking, though the timing is important because once we reach the facility and take control of it, supposedly it is within our capability to guard that facility. And it’s a good thing to guard, because any ammunition the enemy gains can be used against our soldiers.

What’s more, your suggestion that the UN should have destroyed the explosives (which can be dual use, for mining and excavation) falls flat because it was not our policy to destroy these depots either. We preserved, they preserved.

As for who moved them, that is an interesting question and the fact we don’t know ourselves, after supposed taking possession of the place should not be all that comforting to you. Whether looters moved it and sold it off, Saddam moved it and used it to begin the insurgency, or Terrorists moved it to start working their acts of evil. Hell, for all we know, it could have been all three. One thing is clear though: they were there when the inspectors left, gone when our inspectors showed up.

The very notion that any of them could remove these explosives without going through us, implies a lack of control over this territory we supposedly conquered.

They were still looting the place when we got there. Brit Hume, FoxNews reporter reported seeing equipment and materials still under IAEA seal when the unit he was imbedded in got there. Even if some material was gone, there was a chance to deprive our enemies of a great deal of it.

Unfortunately, your people don’t think that way. They think in the absolute terms of total war, where the only thing that matters is winning, where secondary objectives like protecting munitions dumps are just that to you, instead of being part of the supporting efforts of the war. You say it was impossible to do these things. No it isn’t. you just have to be willing to put forward the effort and the troops to do it. And if you don’t have enough troops to guard it, blow it up, destroy it.

But no. Bush just left the stuff there, and our soldiers are suffering the consequences on many levels.

As for Saddam being in power, if it were a choice between a dictator who threatens the region and some of our interests and a terrorist who threatens and takes American lives, I’d choose to go after the terrorist.

You know, you’re beginning to sound desperate when you start telling us this is all a scheme of Bush’s political advisor. I’m sorry, the liability has shifted back the presidents way, and with a vengeance. It was a nice response, but only as long as people didn’t look closely. Now, more than ever, people are.

Hey Eric, I was just kinda wondering, Do you think Saddam Hussein outwitted George Bush?

-Cf

Eric,
Check and Checkmate! Al QaQaa seals were intact in March 2003 right before IAEA left country. Sorry Charlie”

Just in case its to long of link: http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/10/25/timeline_on_missing_explosives_in_iraq?mode=PF

Now, lets the spin masters cry about this one. Bet they media will try to hide this.

bugcrazy —

Sorry, I still don’t get you. You say I’m condoning lying and doing wrong, but that’s not so. I have to choose between two liars — politicians, in other words — in this election. Will I choose the guy who lied to get us started on his own personal war, which may or may not be a religious Crusade against Islam, or will I choose the guy who used information from a newspaper article to further his cause without doing extensive investigations of his own.

Not a tough choice for me, not at all.

And as for the Bush apologists —

Scenario 1: The explosives were stolen after the troops arrived. Failure.

Scenario 2: The explosives were stolen or moved right before the invasion. Failure. We knew where the bunker was, we should have been monitoring it like we were monitoring the supposed WMD’s.

Scenario 3: Karl Rove released disinformation to the press in a very strange attempt to discredit Kerry. Failure. No matter how people like Eric spin this, people will be left with the impression that there are missing explosives. Karl Rove of all people should remember that the first impression is the one that counts.

Even if the story is proven to be more tenuous than Kerry would like, it’s still a negative for Bush no matter how dizzy we all get.

Hmm…seems that the US asked for these explosives to be destroyed way back in 1995. But the UN, in it’s wishy washy way, just weren’t sure if they were dangerous enough.

They weren’t dangerous when they were locked up and monitored - back before Bush got all bug-eyed crazy and invaded Iraq for no good reason, and without enough troops to secure all the weapons depots.

Back in 95, there wasn’t much danger that the US would go on some wacky ideological military adventure in Iraq. When Bush decided that Saddam had to go ASAP no matter what, it became his responsibility to secure the explosives. That’s what Powell was telling Bush when he said, “You break it, you bought it”. It’s all about responsibility, or lack thereof.