NEWS: Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished from Site in Iraq

Published on October 25, 2004 By blogic In Politics

This is the big Iraq news of the day, high up at sites that rank stories by reader interest, although not higher than the Ashlee Simpson lip-syncing scandal -- "Lip-sunk" as the AM-NY daily put it.

Anyway, Bush's policies are less of a problem than his incompetence...

This is from the NY Times:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year.

[snip]

The bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound of the same type of material, and larger amounts were apparently used in the bombing of a housing complex in November 2003 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the blasts in a Moscow apartment complex in September 1999 that killed nearly 300 people.

The explosives could also be used to trigger a nuclear weapon, which was why international nuclear inspectors had kept a watch on the material, and even sealed and locked some of it. The other components of an atom bomb - the design and the radioactive fuel - are more difficult to obtain.

[snip]

The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured, European diplomats said in interviews last week. Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded, beyond the fact that the occupation force was overwhelmed by the amount of munitions they found throughout the country.

[snip]

[The] Bush administration would not allow the agency back into the country to verify the status of the stockpile. In May 2004, Iraqi officials say in interviews, they warned L. Paul Bremer III, the American head of the occupation authority, that Al Qaqaa had probably been looted. It is unclear if that warning was passed anywhere. Efforts to reach Mr. Bremer by telephone were unsuccessful.

Comments (Page 4)

Daiwa

on Oct 30, 2004

There's only one problem, blogic.

The LEFTIST KERRY MEDIA ORGANS made the accusation. The LEFTIST MEDIA ORGANS have the burden of proof. The uncertainty about what happened is NOT PROOF.

The Bush Campaign has nothing it has to prove - YOU have something to prove and you're doing nothing but demanding that we prove the wild-ass guess of the NYT is wrong. GIVE US THE PROOF BEFORE CLAIMING YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED & WHO SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.

Cheers,
Daiwa

T B

on Oct 30, 2004

Reality: Kerry says Bush, not troops, is responsible. Only Bush supporters have suggested the troops are at fault

What Kerry said:

“George W. Bush who talks tough and brags about making America safer has once again failed to deliver. After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq, this administration failed to guard those stockpiles

Perhaps you are naive enough to believe Kerry was talking about Bush and Condi Rice guarding the facility. Or perhaps you are asserting Pres. Bush is on the phone to each Col and Sgt giving them direct orders. Or perhaps you are just willing to ignore ABC, CNN, CBS, et. al. reports when they don't suit you or filter out the parts which don't suit your pre-conceived notion or lemming like enough to buy the BS Kerry continues to spew while taking as gospel "anonymous sources" and unamed "iraqi witnesses".

The intellectual dishonesty is deserving of contempt and not worth wasting another word on.

COL Gene

on Oct 30, 2004

After reading this series of Blogs it appears that the forrest has been lost for the trees. The real issue is not if there were 380 tons or 400 tons. Not if there is proof that this material was stolen. Not if it could have been removed. The issue is how the United States handled the Iraq war. From the first day after Saddam fell, we began to lose control. The looting was the very first sign and events every day show a blind person that we did not secure Iraq at the borders, explosive storage sites, populated areas, pipelines etc.

This is not because our military was not doing a good job. It is because they were given mission impossible with the resources we provided. That is the forrest. That forrest has turned the Iraq peiople aginst us. It has caused more American and Iraq deaths and injuries than needed and is a failure of the President to properly plan and than later correct for his error to not provide the needed manpower. That is not a Left or Right issue it is a matter of fact. George W. Bush viloated every precept of military planning that in the past has made us successful. His generals told him what was requitred including Tommy Franks, but Bush did it his way. Even after it was clear we were not able to establish control and Paul Bremer asked for more help. Bush did nothing. Why would anyone re-elect a president who not only failed this important task but refused to correct his error when it was clear his plan is not working? In business the CEO would be removed for this kind of performance and so should Bush.

Don Bemont

on Oct 30, 2004

Perhaps you are naive enough to believe Kerry was talking about Bush and Condi Rice guarding the facility.

The major network sources quoted people who had been on the scene as making the point that the troops who went through the area simply did not have the manpower to secure such a facility.

The impression I get is that, if there is a criticism, it is probably a matter of the manpower needed to do this job in Iraq. The administration has worked hard to keep a "things are under control" image from the start, and part of this has been a refusal to increase manpower in a meaningful way.

Truthfully, though, it all reminds me of the Kerry military service issue. On one level, the specifics of his medals are immaterial, but he made himself vulnerable by making his Vietnam service the center of his campaign.

Bush is in the same bind. On one level the explosives issue is unfortunate but not worthy of presidential politics -- yet, by making his leadership in the war -- and the war's success -- so central to his campaign, Bush leaves himself vulnerable to this stuff.

Personally, I would be a lot more concerned about the instincts Bush and his administration have shown in regards to the Geneva Convention. That is a deliberate move and a policy area likely to reappear. If I had not already decided to vote against Bush, I would shrug this new matter off as disheartening but not fodder for voting decisions. Very truthfully, I am more turned off by the viciousness of Bush's counter attack against Kerry, than I am about the original error. To me, this is a familiar character flaw in the man. (Not that Kerry doesn't have plenty of these too.)

Lee1776

on Oct 30, 2004

Hay guys, why are we still on this point?

The US Army explosives disposal team is saying that they destroyed 250 tons of the stuff from that site.

Link

For me the issue is dead. You guys can stop beating a dead horse now.

That's My Two Cents

T B

on Oct 30, 2004

T_B the IAEA sealed and kept track of dual purpose items as they could have WMD application, but also had possible non WMD application

You are apparently unclear on "dual use" which is neither here nor there. Any and all items that had any remote connection to nuclear devises, research, support, et. al. was and is prohibited and was to be removed and destroyed or otherwise rendered harmless.

T B

on Oct 30, 2004

Sorry this was a double post (my computer locked up mid post - please delete)

Daiwa

on Oct 30, 2004

COL -

NO, that's NOT the issue. This is just another tactic routinely employed by someone who has no facts to back up their allegation, the old misdirection play. Just like Dan Rather saying it doesn't matter whether his documents are fake, the "issues raised" are the whole point. What a crock of shit. If you want to argue the merits of the Iraq war, fine, but don't use this pile of manure as a basis for any of that argument.

And Don -

Bush is in the same bind. On one level the explosives issue is unfortunate but not worthy of presidential politics -- yet, by making his leadership in the war -- and the war's success -- so central to his campaign, Bush leaves himself vulnerable to this stuff.

Another crock which presumes the accusation to be true. We don't know that.

With regrets to the horse,
Daiwa

drmiler

on Oct 30, 2004

Reply #49 By: Don Bemont - 10/30/2004 7:10:27 PM
Perhaps you are naive enough to believe Kerry was talking about Bush and Condi Rice guarding the facility.
The major network sources quoted people who had been on the scene as making the point that the troops who went through the area simply did not have the manpower to secure such a facility.

What a crock! The 101st was there on site. All it would take to secure the site would be a company. When securing a site you limit access to entrances/exits and grounds. Are you seriously going to tell me the 101st or 3rd Div weren't enough to secure the site?Most of this facility is underground! It's NOT that difficult to secure.

Solitair

on Oct 31, 2004

Any and all items that had any remote connection to nuclear devises, research, support, et. al. was and is prohibited and was to be removed and destroyed or otherwise rendered harmless

Not true. Dual use items were to be carefully inspected, tagged and controlled to ensure that they were being used for the right application. This was true of major chemical labs, aluminum rocket casings (which initially were suspected as centrifuge components), pre-cursor chemicals (which often had secondary fertilizer uses) and high explosives. Any single use items were to be immediately destroyed though.

Paul.

COL Gene

on Oct 31, 2004

The issue is not just the expolsives at this site but the fact we did not control the explosives all over Iraq that have been used to kiill our troops. That has not beed addressed and is a FAR BIGGER ISSUE! It gets to the judgement of GW in the way he planned and conducted this war.

My greatest fear in re-electing Bush is what he might do in another Iraq develops. Will he make the same mistakes again. Since he does not seem to know he made errors, will he make them again? Very likely!

COL Gene

on Oct 31, 2004

The issue is not just this site buty all the other sites from which the terrorists have been taking explosives to kill Americans. That is a nuch bigger issue and failure of Bush

Daiwa

on Oct 31, 2004

The issue is not just this site buty all the other sites from which the terrorists have been taking explosives to kill Americans. That is a nuch bigger issue and failure of Bush

Another accusation without proof. This is getting very old.

Cheers,
Daiwa

drmiler

on Oct 31, 2004

Reply #57 By: COL Gene - 10/31/2004 7:42:40 AM
The issue is not just this site buty all the other sites from which the terrorists have been taking explosives to kill Americans. That is a nuch bigger issue and failure of Bush

*Really old*!

T B

on Oct 31, 2004

Not true

Read UN resolution 687, section C, I don't think there can be debate on this. Some of the items that IAEA found were possible components for nuclear warheads. Tubes, fertilizer chems and the machinery have civilian use.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!