View Full Version : Feeling safer?

10-25-2004, 03:29 AM
Unbelievable. We knew exactly where these weapons were and apparently did nothing to monitor them, much less secure or remove them, after we invaded.:

IAEA Says Tons of Iraq Explosives Missing

VIENNA (AP) — Several hundred tons of conventional explosives are missing from a former Iraqi military facility that once played a key role in Saddam Hussein's efforts to build a nuclear bomb, the U.N. nuclear agency confirmed Monday.
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei will report the materials' disappearance to the U.N. Security Council later Monday, spokeswoman Melissa Fleming told The Associated Press.

"On Oct. 10, the IAEA received a declaration from the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology informing us that approximately 350 tons of high explosive material had gone missing," Fleming said.

The Iraqis told the agency the materials had been stolen and looted because of a lack of security at governmental installations, Fleming said.

Nearly 380 tons of powerful explosives that could be used to build large conventional bombs are missing from the former Al Qaqaa military installation, The New York Times reported Monday.

The explosives included HMX and RDX, which can be used to demolish buildings but also produce warheads for missiles and detonate nuclear weaponry, the newspaper said. It said they disappeared after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq last year.

President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleeza Rice, was informed of the missing explosives in the past month, the report said. It said Iraq's interim government recently warned the United States and U.N. nuclear inspectors that the explosives had vanished.

Before the war, inspectors with the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency had kept tabs on the so-called "dual use" explosives because they could have been used to detonate a nuclear weapon.

10-25-2004, 06:22 AM
I have tried to stay out of the political discussion here as most have their positions chisled in stone. You and I share, as near as I can tell, at the very least inquisitive minds and I have enjoyed your posts in defense of 'common sense' as apposed to the 'damn the topedoes full speed ahead' boys.
The story you site is just another in a long litany of Hail Mary passes this administration has called only to have the play fail misserably. Just one more example of how incompetent and inept their winning the peace plan ( I use the word plan loosely ) is. This country is in a war and we do have to win it, this country deserves a commandor in cheif who has not already proven he is unequal to the task at hand. Given this lodgic Bush has to go and Kerry is our only option....one doesn't learn a thing the second time a jackass kicks you...I don't bet on losers...

<font color="red">Eight more days to go...LOL </font color>

10-25-2004, 06:42 AM
I would vote for "Ross" for president. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

10-25-2004, 08:03 AM

10-25-2004, 01:10 PM
I always fees safe...

FEBRUARY 23 &amp; 24, 2001 – COLIN POWELL SAYS IRAQ IS CONTAINED: "I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box." He added Saddam "is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" and that "he threatens not the United States." [Source: State Department, 2/23/01 and 2/24/01]

SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 – CHENEY ACKNOWLEDGES IRAQ IS CONTAINED: Vice President Dick Cheney said that "Saddam Hussein is bottled up" – a confirmation of the intelligence he had received. [Source: Meet the Press, 9/16/2001]

SEPTEMBER 2001 – WHITE HOUSE CREATES OFFICE TO CIRCUMVENT INTEL AGENCIES: The Pentagon creates the Office of Special Plans "in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true-that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States…The rising influence of the Office of Special Plans was accompanied by a decline in the influence of the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. bringing about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community." The office, hand-picked by the Administration, specifically "cherry-picked intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest" while officials deliberately "bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence." [Sources: New Yorker, 5/12/03; Atlantic Monthly, 1/04; New Yorker, 10/20/03]

2002: Intel Agencies Repeatedly Warn White House of Its Weak WMD Case

Throughout 2002, the CIA, DIA, Department of Energy and United Nations all warned the Bush Administration that its selective use of intelligence was painting a weak WMD case. Those warnings were repeatedly ignored.

JANUARY, 2002 – TENET DOES NOT MENTION IRAQ IN NUCLEAR THREAT REPORT: "In CIA Director George Tenet's January 2002 review of global weapons-technology proliferation, he did not even mention a nuclear threat from Iraq, though he did warn of one from North Korea." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]

FEBRUARY 6, 2002 – CIA SAYS IRAQ HAS NOT PROVIDED WMD TO TERRORISTS: "The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials." [Source: NY Times, 2/6/02]

APRIL 15, 2002 – WOLFOWITZ ANGERED AT CIA FOR NOT UNDERMINING U.N. REPORT: After receiving a CIA report that concluded that Hans Blix had conducted inspections of Iraq's declared nuclear power plants "fully within the parameters he could operate" when Blix was head of the international agency responsible for these inspections prior to the Gulf War, a report indicated that "Wolfowitz ‘hit the ceiling’ because the CIA failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new U.N. weapons inspection program." [Source: W. Post, 4/15/02]

SUMMER, 2002 – CIA WARNINGS TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED: "In the late summer of 2002, Sen. Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies--noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA's classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration's claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]

SEPTEMBER, 2002 – DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS: "An unclassified excerpt of a 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency study on Iraq's chemical warfare program in which it stated that there is ‘no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has - or will - establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.’" The report also said, "A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions." [Source: Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 6/13/03; DIA report, 2002]

SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS: "Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes ‘are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs’ a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence." [Source: UPI, 9/20/02]

OCTOBER 2002 – CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa." [Source: Washington Post, 7/23/03]

OCTOBER 2002 — STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES: The State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department dissented from the conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD capabilities that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. "The activities we have detected do not ... add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons." INR accepted the judgment by Energy Department technical experts that aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, which was the central basis for the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, were ill-suited to build centrifuges for enriching uranium. [Source, Declassified Iraq NIE released 7/2003]

OCTOBER 2002 – AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The government organization most knowledgeable about the United States' UAV program -- the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center -- had sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons" – a WMD claim President Bush used in his October 7 speech on Iraqi WMD, just three days before the congressional vote authorizing the president to use force. [Source: Washington Post, 9/26/03]

2003: WH Pressures Intel Agencies to Conform; Ignores More Warnings

Instead of listening to the repeated warnings from the intelligence community, intelligence officials say the White House instead pressured them to conform their reports to fit a pre-determined policy. Meanwhile, more evidence from international institutions poured in that the White House’s claims were not well-grounded.

LATE 2002-EARLY 2003 – CHENEY PRESSURES CIA TO CHANGE INTELLIGENCE: "Vice President Dick Cheney's repeated trips to CIA headquarters in the run-up to the war for unusual, face-to-face sessions with intelligence analysts poring over Iraqi data. The pressure on the intelligence community to document the administration's claims that the Iraqi regime had ties to al-Qaida and was pursuing a nuclear weapons capacity was ‘unremitting,’ said former CIA counterterrorism chief Vince Cannistraro, echoing several other intelligence veterans interviewed." Additionally, CIA officials "charged that the hard-liners in the Defense Department and vice president's office had 'pressured' agency analysts to paint a dire picture of Saddam's capabilities and intentions." [Sources: Dallas Morning News, 7/28/03; Newsweek, 7/28/03]

JANUARY, 2003 – STATE DEPT. INTEL BUREAU REITERATE WARNING TO POWELL: "The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), the State Department's in-house analysis unit, and nuclear experts at the Department of Energy are understood to have explicitly warned Secretary of State Colin Powell during the preparation of his speech that the evidence was questionable. The Bureau reiterated to Mr. Powell during the preparation of his February speech that its analysts were not persuaded that the aluminum tubes the Administration was citing could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium." [Source: Financial Times, 7/30/03]

FEBRUARY 14, 2003 – UN WARNS WHITE HOUSE THAT NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND: "In their third progress report since U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed in November, inspectors told the council they had not found any weapons of mass destruction." Weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council they had been unable to find any WMD in Iraq and that more time was needed for inspections. [Source: CNN, 2/14/03]

FEBRUARY 15, 2003 – IAEA WARNS WHITE HOUSE NO NUCLEAR EVIDENCE: The head of the IAEA told the U.N. in February that "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." The IAEA examined "2,000 pages of documents seized Jan. 16 from an Iraqi scientist's home -- evidence, the Americans said, that the Iraqi regime was hiding government documents in private homes. The documents, including some marked classified, appear to be the scientist's personal files." However, "the documents, which contained information about the use of laser technology to enrich uranium, refer to activities and sites known to the IAEA and do not change the agency's conclusions about Iraq's laser enrichment program." [Source: Wash. Post, 2/15/03]

FEBURARY 24, 2003 – CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE ‘NO DIRECT EVIDENCE’ OF WMD: "A CIA report on proliferation released this week says the intelligence community has no ‘direct evidence’ that Iraq has succeeded in reconstituting its biological, chemical, nuclear or long-range missile programs in the two years since U.N. weapons inspectors left and U.S. planes bombed Iraqi facilities. ‘We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs,’ said the agency in its semi-annual report on proliferation activities." [NBC News, 2/24/03]

MARCH 7, 2003 – IAEA REITERATES TO WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES: IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes or specialized ring magnets for centrifuge enrichment of uranium. For months, American officials had "cited Iraq's importation of these tubes as evidence that Mr. Hussein's scientists have been seeking to develop a nuclear capability." ElBaradei also noted said "the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that documents which formed the basis for the [President Bush’s assertion] of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic." When questioned about this on Meet the Press, Vice President Dick Cheney simply said "Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong." [Source: NY Times, 3/7/03: Meet the Press, 3/16/03]

MAY 30, 2003 – INTEL PROFESSIONALS ADMIT THEY WERE PRESSURED: "A growing number of U.S. national security professionals are accusing the Bush administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the $30 billion intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq . A key target is a four-person Pentagon team that reviewed material gathered by other intelligence outfits for any missed bits that might have tied Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to banned weapons or terrorist groups. This team, self-mockingly called the Cabal, 'cherry-picked the intelligence stream' in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, said Patrick Lang, a official at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The DIA was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he said. Greg Thielmann, an intelligence official in the State Department, said it appeared to him that intelligence had been shaped 'from the top down.'" [Reuters, 5/30/03 ]

JUNE 6, 2003 – INTELLIGENCE HISTORIAN SAYS INTEL WAS HYPED: "The CIA bowed to Bush administration pressure to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs ahead of the U.S.-led war in Iraq , a leading national security historian concluded in a detailed study of the spy agency's public pronouncements." [Reuters, 6/6/03]

10-25-2004, 08:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote PQQLK9:</font><hr> I would vote for "Ross" for president. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks - maybe I could edge out Nader....

10-26-2004, 09:48 AM
Well, well, well. As it turns out the weapons were already gone when we got there. They are probably in the same place as the nerve gas.

This story apparently was leaked by the IAEA (read: "anti-Bush UN) to CBS and the NY Times even though they knew this in April 2003.

CBS was going to run this on 60 Minutres Oct. 31 but the Times refused to hold it until then.

This was to be the October surprise.

Nice try Mr. Rather. You have proved yourself a partisan dupe once more.

10-26-2004, 12:37 PM
Wally, you have to quit using Drudge as your information arbiter! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
(I'm assuming that is where you got your info because your post parallels the Drudge blurb.)

Anyway I, like everyone else, can only go by what I read. But the LA Times has a much more balanced article at:


(This is the article cited in the Drudge Report.)

10-26-2004, 01:41 PM

Would you mind cut an paste'n this into a post? That site wants a registration to view this, I'd really be interested in seeing the article...sid

10-26-2004, 03:12 PM
Here you go:

LA Times, By Mark Mazzetti and Maggie Farley, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — The White House acknowledged Monday that nearly 380 tons of powerful explosives were missing from a weapons facility that American forces failed to guard after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, raising fears that the munitions could be given to militants or used for attacks against troops in Iraq.

U.S. officials say the explosives — which are powerful enough to detonate a nuclear bomb — may have been looted from one of Saddam Hussein's bomb-making plants when U.S. forces worked to pacify Baghdad and other restive cities.

White House officials downplayed the significance of the missing explosives. But coming eight days before the presidential election, the disclosure reverberated through the campaign, with Democratic nominee Sen. John F. Kerry calling it one of President Bush's "great blunders" in Iraq.

Using the report to take the offensive Monday, Kerry tried to turn against Bush a key question the president has raised throughout the campaign: Which candidate is best suited to keep the country safe?

"The incredible incompetence of this president and this administration has put our troops at risk and put this country at greater risk than we all need," Kerry said. "George W. Bush has failed the essential test of any commander in chief, to keep America safe."

Bush, Kerry added, "talks tough and brags about making America safer," but "once again failed to deliver."

The timing of the theft was in dispute Monday. One Pentagon official said that when U.S. forces advancing toward Baghdad reached the Al Qaqaa military facility in early April 2003, the weapons cache was already gone. He suggested that the Americans had no chance to safeguard the material, which had been labeled and was being monitored by United Nations weapons inspectors.

"It had already been looted by the time U.S. forces went through there," the senior Defense official said. "When the troops went in, they never saw anything that was tagged."

Some cast doubt on the Pentagon's claim. Given the size of the missing cache, it would have been difficult to relocate undetected before the invasion, when U.S. spy satellites were monitoring activity at sites suspected of concealing nuclear and biological weapons.

"You don't just move this stuff in the middle of the night," said a former U.S. intelligence official who worked in Baghdad.

Iraqi officials told the International Atomic Energy Agency — the U.N. monitoring group — earlier this month that the explosives were looted after April 9, 2003, when U.S. forces entered Baghdad. IAEA officials verified that the explosives were still at the site and under seal in January 2003, the last time the inspectors were there.

The IAEA had been monitoring the material — known as HMX and RDX — as part of the U.N. inspection program after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

The agency had issued numerous warnings about the explosives falling into the wrong hands before and after the U.S. invasion.

Pentagon officials said that although U.S. troops searched the facility on several occasions during and after the invasion, the facility was not high on U.S. commanders' list of sites to guard because survey teams found no nuclear or biological materials at Al Qaqaa, a collection of 87 buildings and underground bunkers less than 30 miles south of Baghdad.

Asked if U.S. troops were ever ordered to guard the facility, where Hussein built conventional warheads and the IAEA dismantled parts of his nuclear program after the Gulf War, a Defense official responded, "Not that I'm aware of."

David Kay, the CIA's former chief weapons hunter in Iraq, believes that the material was looted in the immediate aftermath of the war.

He said he saw the facility in May 2003, "and it was heavily looted at that time. Sometime between April and May, most of the stuff was carried off. The site was in total disarray, just like a lot of the Iraqi sites."

Kay said that HMX and RDX were "superb explosives for terrorists" because they were stable compounds that could be transported safely and used for large-scale attacks.

Both types of material "would be good for a car bomb or a truck bomb," Kay said. "Just pack it together with a detonator."

The U.S. failure to guard hundreds of ammunition depots after the invasion has been well documented. Top military officials in Iraq believe that weapons taken from these sites have armed an insurgency that is taking American lives almost daily. More than 1,100 U.S. troops have been killed since the invasion began.

The explosive power of the stolen material — just half a pound of HMX brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 — has officials particularly worried.

"That's half a pound; 380 tons are missing — that's almost 40 truckloads," an IAEA official said on condition of anonymity. "Imagine what it could do in the hands of insurgents there. It's a huge concern that it is missing, whatever it may be used for."

IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei has been stepping up pressure for an accounting of sensitive sites in Iraq. In a letter to the U.N. Security Council this month, he said that under IAEA agreements, Iraq is obligated "to declare semiannually changes that have occurred or are foreseen at sites deemed relevant by the agency." But since March 2003, he said, "the agency has received no such notifications or declarations."

The IAEA reported the missing explosives to the Security Council on Monday. The monitoring agency waited before informing the council to give the U.S.-led multinational force and Iraqi authorities a chance to track down the missing material, said IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming.

An article in Monday's New York Times accelerated the agency's disclosures.

Officials at the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon insisted that the 380 tons of stolen explosives were not a nuclear threat and noted that roughly 400,000 tons of collected munitions in Iraq had either been destroyed or were in U.S. custody.

"There is not a nuclear proliferation risk," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told reporters aboard Air Force One. "We're talking about conventional explosives."

Officials also argued that the vast number of weapons sites made it difficult to ensure that Hussein's entire arsenal was brought under U.S. control.

"Given the number of arms and the number of caches and the extent of the militarization of Iraq, it was impossible to provide 100% security for 100% of the sites, quite frankly," State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said.

This month, the former U.S. civilian administrator of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, said he believed that the Pentagon had too few troops in Iraq to prevent the looting and chaos that erupted after U.S. forces entered Baghdad.

The Iraq Survey Group, the CIA's weapons-hunting team, estimated that there were more than 10,000 weapons sites across Iraq.

Although the Pentagon maintained that all known stores of munitions and potential nuclear sites were being guarded by U.S. or allied forces, even some highly sensitive facilities were guarded only loosely.

The interim Iraqi government notified the IAEA of the missing 380 tons of explosives on Oct. 10, and the IAEA passed the information to the U.S. Embassy in Vienna on Oct. 15. According to McClellan, Bush learned of the missing explosives days later.

Jon Wolfstahl, deputy director of the nonproliferation project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the Al Qaqaa location was well known to U.N. nuclear weapons inspectors and had been routinely visited by them from 1991 to 1998 — before inspectors left Iraq.

"This isn't some stash that no one knew about," Wolfstahl said. "The IAEA knew about it and warned the administration about its sensitivity."

Military responsibility for northern Babil province, where the Al Qaqaa facility is located, has shifted among several U.S. Army and Marine units since American forces took control of the area in April 2003.

Since last month, about 3,200 Marines have been based in the area — twice the number that had protected the region earlier in the year. Despite the increase, military officials have complained of being stretched thin.

Kerry hammered Bush about the missing explosives in campaign appearances Monday, saying the administration was "doomed to repeat the same mistakes" with Iran or North Korea, two countries that U.S. officials believe are developing nuclear weapons.

"Terrorists could use this material to kill our troops, our people, blow up airplanes and level buildings," he told supporters at a New Hampshire rally.

Kerry accused the administration of "blindness," "stubbornness" and "arrogance" on Iraq, and blasted Bush for failing to "do the basics" in securing Hussein's weapons.

The Democrat said U.S. troops "have been doing their job courageously and honorably. The problem is the commander in chief has not been doing his."

Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for Bush's reelection campaign, said Kerry had "no vision for fighting and winning the war on terror, so he is basing his attacks on the headlines he wakes up to each day."

"If John Kerry wants to spend the next eight days trying to explain his positions again, we welcome that debate," Schmidt said. "John Kerry can't lead the nation to victory in a war he doesn't believe in."

10-26-2004, 05:55 PM
The shoe bomber who tried to blow up a plane with a few ounces of explosive was charged with.........
Reid was sentenced to life in prison on three counts: one of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against U.S. nationals outside the United States and two of interference with flight crew and attendants using a dangerous weapon <hr /></blockquote>

Officials at the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon insisted that the 380 tons of stolen explosives were not a nuclear threat and noted that roughly 400,000 tons of collected munitions in Iraq had either been destroyed or were in U.S. custody.

"There is not a nuclear proliferation risk," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told reporters aboard Air Force One. "We're talking about conventional explosives."
<hr /></blockquote>

"Its ok guys, its only 380 tonnes of high explosive"!???
I,m sure the troops in Iraq will be relieved to that!!?
By the Govts own definition these explosives qualify as WMDs. You cant have it both ways.
This is a major,major flip-flop by the Admin.


10-26-2004, 08:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> Ross,

Would you mind cut an paste'n this into a post? That site wants a registration to view this, I'd really be interested in seeing the article...sid <hr /></blockquote>

Next time you run into a registration problem like that try using this handy link. It can get the job done and protect your privacy at the same time:

Bug Me Not (http://www.bugmenot.com/)

Cueless Joey
10-26-2004, 11:48 PM
Jeesh, I thought Iraq did not have WMD's.
Never mind us here, the troops down there?
I really doubt this interim Iraq administration can survive.
Honestly, without committing a massacre here and there , how do you control the maggots?

10-27-2004, 07:35 AM
Unless you were there or knew someone who was, post war Germany was far worse then Iraq and it went on for a long time, but you won't find it in any history books. It was not till the Russians got there that things started to get in order. If one of their solders were killed in a town they would line up 200 and execute them. It takes that kind of equal brutality to deal with some people. The truth is, we are not that kind of people and are fighting a war like there are rules and we are the nice guys. Our solders over there are just targets in a shooting gallery and I doubt it will change any time soon. It was predictable.

10-27-2004, 09:18 AM
I think Iraq is complicated, like Vietnam was. In previous wars we were fighting countries with armies. You knew pretty much who the opposing soldiers were either because they wore uniforms or by default because they were young males from that country.

In Vietnam the war changed - it became a lot less clear who was friend and who was foe. Suddenly children became dangerous.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban were somewhat recognizable again and we usually knew pretty much who to go after.

Iraq is more like Vietnam, but worse in some ways. We aren't fighting against any country (like Germany, or North Korea, or North Vietnam). Even if we were willing to be brutal - "killing the maggots" or killing 200 of "them" for every one of ours-- I don't know how you would go about it. We came in supposedly to liberate the Iraqi citizens. So the average citizen is not our enemy. In fact, the insurgents are already killing the Iraqi citizens themselves. So how do you find 200 insurgents to massacre? How do you kill the "maggots" if you don't know who they are?

I guess we know Fallujah is a hotbed, so you could go hardline against that city. And some strategists thinks we should have done that earlier. But in other places, like Bagdad where most of the car bombings are, most of the residents are not the enemy.

The Bush admin is great at "getting tough" and they were well prepared to attack the Iraqi army. But when the Iraqi army quickly dissolved this admin was out of its element. Bush pretty much even admitted this. He and Rummy and Cheney really had no great plans on how to deal with what we are facing now, IMO. They still don't as far as I can tell.

10-29-2004, 09:39 AM
It is now clear that the conservative media have made a lot of false claims to try to make this debacle go away. They say "we knew about this in April /03" and "the explosives were already gone before we invaded." But that simply isn't true. Bush and Rummy themselves have publicly admitted that they don't know if the explosives were gone at that time.

From AP:
"President Bush says the explosives were possibly removed by Saddam's forces before the invasion."
Defense Secretary Donald 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.

"We would have seen anything like that," he said in one of two radio interviews he gave at the Pentagon. "The idea it was suddenly looted and moved out, all of these tons of equipment, I think is at least debatable."

The latest:

"Videotape shot by a Minnesota television crew traveling with U.S. troops in Iraq when they first opened the bunkers at the Al-Qaqaa munitions base nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein shows what appeared to be high explosives still in barrels and bearing the markings of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The video taken by KSTP of St. Paul on April 18, 2003 , could reinforce suggestions that tons of explosives missing from a munitions installation in Iraq were looted after the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq."

I think in this case the NYTimes got it right and the Drudges, etc., got it wrong. Just the fact that even today the US doesn't know for sure whether hundreds of tons of high grade explosives (the location of which had been pinpointed by those "ineffective" UN people) were at the facility when we invaded sounds grossly incompetent to me. Remember these materials can, in a worse case scenario, can be used to help detonate a nuclear weapon. If not used for nuclear weapon detonation they can be used for blowing up about every thing else. And do you think widespread looting of weapons depots was unpredictable?

This fiasco is yet another validation of the view of the generals that said we needed to invade with more troops to secure Iraq, a view that Rummy dismissed.

It is hard for me to understand how people cannot admit to themselves that the planning for securing post-invasion Iraq was grossly incompetent. If this were the Apprentice, Trump would now turn to Rummy and say "YOUR FIRED!"

Time for us to do the same --in the voting booth.

10-29-2004, 09:49 AM

HERE...HERE... <font color="red"> voter early &amp; vote often </font color>

10-29-2004, 10:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>

"Videotape shot by a Minnesota television crew traveling with U.S. troops in Iraq when they first opened the bunkers at the Al-Qaqaa munitions base nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein shows [b]what appeared to be high explosives still in barrels and bearing the markings of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
<hr /></blockquote>

I had not heard about that. Hell who knows what happened. Bill Gertz says Russian Special forces moved that stuff before the war. I guess we will find out eventually.

10-29-2004, 10:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> voter early &amp; vote often <hr /></blockquote>

typical Dummycrat /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

10-29-2004, 10:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> vote often <hr /></blockquote>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Must be in Florida.. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

10-29-2004, 10:57 AM
Perk &amp; Wally...Hey, I like the sound of that..."PERK &amp; WALLY"...that could be like the name of a new high energy sports/sex type drink... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Actually, I've always registered as 'independant' so I wouldn't get so much crap mail/phone calls during primary elections but that move doesn't seem to work. I have a garbage bag on the front porch which I put all the political junk mail in; it is nearly full...I plan on burning it to help heat my pool room here at home...I don't like to waste stuff... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

10-29-2004, 11:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> ..."PERK &amp; WALLY"...that could be like the name of a new high energy sports/sex type drink... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<hr /></blockquote>

Sounds like something on the Cartoon Channel /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr>...Actually, I've always registered as 'independant' so I wouldn't get so much crap mail/phone calls...
<hr /></blockquote>

I belong to the NRA and subscribe to The American Spectator. You would not believe how much stuff I get. And you would be shocked, absolutely shocked, to find out that the majority of them are wanting my money /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

10-29-2004, 12:51 PM
I had not heard about that. <font color="blue"> Maybe you should look further than Fox news. </font color> Hell who knows what happened. <font color="blue"> We know what happened. Ross just told you. In APRIL, after the invasion, these explosives were still there.Its a matter of fact that. [a]the troops were there on that date. and b. The embedded news crew shot video tape showing the IAEC seals. </font color> Bill Gertz says Russian Special forces moved that stuff before the war. <font color="blue"> OMG! Are you interested in buying the Brooklyn Bridge? I can let you have it for a good price. </font color> I guess we will find out eventually <font color="blue"> You might find out eventually, most of us already know. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

After all the mistakes this Govt has made in the last 4 years, why should anybody give them the benefit of the doubt on anything ?


10-29-2004, 01:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

<font color="blue"> You might find out eventually, most of us already know. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

You know what happened to them? Damn, you are good /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Did you have the Qtec personal satellite system tracking them?

10-29-2004, 02:27 PM
Get this, now our story changes once again from the so called consistent, non flip-flopping administration..."Our US armed forces moved the tons of this after the camera crew left the scene." WHAT!? the answer which the admin COULD have told two days ago and would have instantly rectified their hose-up for the past 48 hours, instead said, "We're not sure if it was there before or after the invasion" and "Russia came and helped haul it off before the war" during that interim.

If we'd moved it ourselves, the fact is we'd have proudly said that two day ago, that was exactly what we SHOULD have done, secure the explosives, so say it to the Americans looking for a warm fuzzy that somebody is doing something right, just one thing right. I've never heard such pure BS poured upon the American people in my life, fact after fact, totally, embarrassingly botched up,,,,well Clinton pulled a few when they caught him dead to rights, but those lies didn't kill over a thousand American lives. I laugh, as should anyone following this debacle...sid~~~wonders when so called intelligent Shrub supporters will have to admit the guy is as clueless as the "cow's proverbial whizzing rock", and twice as flat headed