Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq

They're both going to be on Sabado Gigante as well.

 

I saw the press conference live. I summarize it by saying that it was not helpful in any significant ways. The press asked tough questions but They went away even more confused and the pentagon looking a bit worse that they were before the pree conference.

Why was the correspondence between the Major and CINCOM not coordinated better before now?

 

a time line

Pentagon Seeks to Account for Explosives

Elements of the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division arrived in the area on April 3 en route to Baghdad. They fought a battle with Iraqi forces inside Al Qaqaa and moved on, leaving a battalion behind to clear out enemy fighters in the area. Troops found other weapons, including artillery shells, on the base, he said. They didn't specifically search for the 377 tons of high explosives that are missing. On April 6, the battalion left for Baghdad.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others have advanced the theory that the materials were removed before U.S. forces arrived, saying looting that much material would be impossible by small-scale thieves, and that a large-scale theft would have involved lots of trucks and would have been detected.

About four days later, another large unit, the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division, moved into the area. That unit did not search Al-Qaqaa. A unit spokesman said there was heavy looting in the area at the time.

On April 13, Pearson's ordnance-disposal team arrived and took the 250 tons out in a day. That materiel was later destroyed by U.S. forces. His comments may suggest that some of it was still there when U.S. forces arrived. The videotape of the Minnesota television crew traveling with the 101st Airborne was shot April 18.

U.S. weapons hunters did not give the area a thorough search until May, when they visited on three occasions, starting May 8. They searched every building on the compound over the course of those three visits, but did not find any material or explosives that had been marked by the IAEA.

 

The problem is that this isn't a surprise counter attack by Saddam's forces the Admin had been warned of things like this. The army Chief of Staff had told them they needed a lot more troops to provide for security after Saddam fell.

 

It usually works the other way around. He gets his cues from his media.

 

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. The Bushies made a ton of mistakes and only if we play by the emporer has no clothes rules would someone not point this out.

Ignorance is truth?

The fact that thousands of tons of conventional ordnance is *missing* is ridiculous except for those guys rooting for the car bombers and IED makers.

 

This is a preposterous statement. It's possible to make plenty of mistakes without having a problem. It's only a problem when the enemy takes advantage of a mistake. The fact that we made such a basic mistake of a known issue is something our troops and Iraqi civilians are paying for every day. It's not just a mistake, it's a willful disregard for reality which this adminstration repeatedly demonstrates quite proudly.

 

You have choice A and choice B. You choose B and all you can think to call it is "willful disregard?" No bias there for sure!

 

Nice try to redirect the argument from Bush's incompetence at running Iraq post war and tunnel vision at going to war at any cost for any reason. It still doesn't change the fact that thousands of tons of explosives were lost after we were told the munitions could be a danger, and instead as far as we know only planned to dedicate soldiers to guarding the Oil Ministry. The directive from up top was to not even bother guarding the nuke sites which were looted as well. It's either willfull disregard of reality or acceptance of proliferation and the aftermath, either case is pretty stupid, but the history of actions points to willful disregard. To note otherwise is to ignore the Bush history.

 

Even if this were a real, legit story, I still can't figure out how Bush can be immediately responsible for this. Isn't it sort of like a coach taking the heat if his players suck? Yes, yes, he is the "commander in chief", blah, blah, blah. But to act as if he was standing guard is a joke, much like the story itself.

 

This situation isn't like Miceli leaving a breaking ball hanging to Edmonds but more like Grady Little leaving Pedro in to pitch the 8th with a high pitch count. Grady's been told before and should know from experience that you shouldn't let Pedro pitch to far beyond 100 pitches, just like the Bush Admin had been told and should know from problems with pacifying other places that you security is critical and you need more troops on the ground to provide security.

Of course one can always gamble that Pedro can continue to pitch strong or that the Iraqis will just go about things peacefully and orderly as their society collapses but why take that chance when the stakes are so high?

So yes GW Bush isn't directly responsible for these munitions not being secured but he bears responsibility for not planning the mission carefully enough where this might not have happened.

 

Your political vindictiveness is in overdrive.

 

And your political blinders are constricting more and more every day.

 

What are you smokin'?

 

Someone put two and two together, way after the fact...

http://www.nydailynews.com/11-02-2004/news/wn_report/story/248671p-212988c.html


Missing arms tied to blasts



BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - Explosives used in some of Iraq's major terror bombings were the same type as those missing from a dump monitored by the UN, the Daily News has learned.
Forensic tests by a joint task force at the Quantico, Va., Marine base show the bombers who leveled the United Nations and Jordanian missions in Iraq, and who staged other big attacks, used RDX and HMX military-grade high explosives, said a government source briefed on the findings. Both types of munitions were under seal at the Al Qaqaa site near Baghdad.


.
.
.