And now Drudge is reporting that CBS news had the story and was saving it for Election eve.

Typical LSM bias and hypocrisy. Kudos and Accolades for NBC steppping up when they could have buried it. Of course, I'm sure Tom is steaming, but hey, he's retiring anyway.

The challenge is now we will see these invented non news stories every day even though the LSM knows they are not true.

They are so desperate to grab onto anything that helps their skerry campaign, all journalistic integrity is gone out the window for the benfit of the cause dejour.

Regards,
Sonar5

Bill, you've got to keep more current.

On MSNBC this morning:

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. Um, 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. Almost, 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 was, 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.

AR: Well, Lai Ling Jew, thank you so much for shedding some light into that situation. We appreciate it.

Sorry, but the whining about media bias just won't cut it this time.

Imaginary conversation at CBS:

"The New York Times just ran our devasating attack piece a WEEK early?", foamed DR.

"Well, er, yeah, I guess so", replied MM.

"But don't they UNDERSTAND? If you give the da*n bloggers a week, they will KILL this story? It had to run just before the election, so no one will have time to analyze it.", raving DR answered.

"Well, when Joe called and told me we had to run now because the NYT was running it, I told him we were saving it, but he said they wouldn't listen, they didn't learn anything from our little problem", MM shrugged.

"Well, okay, now we have to make up something new. Is there anything else you have been investigating for 5 years, that won't require any documents to prove?"

"Well, I've got this guy in Texas that swears Bush raped one of his sheep, but he doesn't really want to go on air with it."

"Put the pressure on, promise him anything, we can arrange a private meeting with Kerry, or whoever, just get him to say it on tape. By the way, what's his name."

"Bill Burkett"

"OH MY..." followed by 22 minutes of screaming and moaning.

This guy is beating you with a stick!

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Geek,

God knows 300 some odd tons, would be mighty hard to find, eh?

"Hey Sarge.. says on this report 300 tons in bunkers with IAEA seals on 'em"

"you and Ralphie go and check those 4 bunkers."

"Sarge - empty. Here's one those seals though"

"LOAD 'EM UP - LETS GO!"

"What about that lady reporter, says we outta search some more"

"Let her if she wants, we got other things to see to"

Do you know what "there wasn't a search" means--especially when they spent less than 24 hours, a "pit stop"--at a facility that size?

Since you don't, I'll explain:

The NBC report doesn't prove or disprove a damn thing.

Immgination is a wonderfull thing, hey I can imagine GWB being a wonderfull President but oops reality and facts soon cloud the vision and back on planet earth GWB sucks!

The NBC report doesn't prove or disprove a damn thing.

Ah, but you are attempting to confuse the issue with facts!

There's more than enough in the NBC report for a political operative to run with, given only 8 days to the election.

Whats so funny is that even after this further evidence of CBS irrelevance to reality, John Kerry is still beating the dead horse saying that the president is responsible.

Geek,

You are absolutely right. It doesn't prove a thing. Neither does the IAEA's story or the NYT's story.

This is an oft made mistake -- Because the Media says it means it must be true.

What the NBC report does show is that there is disagreement over the issue.

Sorry, it is just the way the world is.

Citizens, Voters, Commanders in Chief are sometimes required to make important decisions (Judgement calls, you might say)EVEN without 100% certainty.

The goods ones can when necessary, the bad ones can't.

Postit:

True that. Note that the faith-based community still has people posting here as if the NBC report means something.

I think it's fair to say that the Bush camp is located on a certain river in Egypt.

Those bunkers had IAEA seals on them. Saddam wouldn't have dared touch them at all, right? He wouldn't want to get the UN mad at him, they might have written him an angry letter, telling him how angry they were at him.

Right of Center:

Yep, just pretend the bad news doesn't exist.

Geek,

I don't get your point. GWB? I think if anything in terms oof Iraq and WMD's he did assume the worst without 100% proof.

(Thankfully so.)

The point is that, with regards to these explosives, the administration is guilty of gross incompetence and/or a house of lies employed to cover this up.

That's what is established here.

Do you think the United States didn't know these explosives were gone until the past month?

If that's the case, they're grossly incompetent. If that's not the case, they're lying their asses off--and may be grossly incompetent to boot.

Do you think the United States didn't know these explosives were gone until the past month?

I'm confused - so what if they did?

Are you mad because they didn't tell you?

GWB has been caught in the classic pincer movement, lie or coverup, now he stands between the devil and the deep blue sea (rock and a hard place or whatever). They always fail to remember that it's not the ACT itself its the COVERUP.

They're saying that they just found out in the past month.

If they did know, then they're LYING. You've spent some time ripping Kerry for that--so I can only assume that you would be similarly outraged if the Bush administration does it regarding the war in Iraq.

Are you mad because they didn't tell you?

No I'm mad because they can't get their story straight about when they knew about them going missing.

Geek - really grasping at this one aren't you? So we have to take the word of one reporterette who was imbedded with a combat brigade? Even her own recollection of the story is confusing at best...."No. There wasn't a search..."Soldiers were searching..." "Nothing to keep the looters away.." "The roads were shut down..."

Uh?

Has it been proven that these weapons were, without a doubt, present at the al Qaqaa facility prior to the US led invasion of Iraq?

No it has not. And the fact that the NY Times does not tell you that in their story tells you a lot about their motivations in the presidential elections.

MT:

It hasn't been shown that the explosives were there before the invasion? Funny, every other report says the exact opposite.

As far as your rebuttal for the text I quote, lame sexism is just not persuasive.

Every day I see more and more trolls posting on your comment section, Bill. You must be doing something right.

And thanks for the alternate perspective, guys.

Has it been proven that these weapons were, without a doubt, present at the al Qaqaa facility prior to the US led invasion of Iraq?

The explosives were there when the IAEA left Iraq before the war, but not there after the war. It is unclear when they were removed, but were likely removed by the regime before or during the war, or looters during the war.

In addition tehre are over 1 million tons of ordinance floating around in Iraq, and the breathless gasp over 380 is bogus.

The NY Times'spin on this is bullshit.

As is Geek's.

I though we established that just because some media say the munitions were unguarded and unsearched for and some media say the opposite - that in your words "doesn't prove or disprove a damn thing." ?

Why should NBC or NY Times be believed over the other?

About announcing that 300 tons of high-grade explosives havesupposedely gone missing, then you guys would be saying the administration is using "scare tactics"

The MSM is just trying to create a story where there is none.

First, no one really knows what happened or what the timeline was...

Second, this is old news...

Third, 380 tons of explosives of this type is a tiny amount in a country that had over one million tons of explosives, and where we've either destroyed or secured over 400,000 tons of explosives. This is much ado about nothing.

This reminds me of the LA Times story on Arnold right before the Calif recall election...it..gasped...accused Arnold of womanizing in the past. Of course, everyone had already heard these accusations before, and he had even admitted to a certain amount of inappropriate behavior. But because the LAT printed it, everyone was supposed to gasp and vote against Arnold.

The MSM is so pathetic and transparent...

Geek - oh, you mean all the other reports that the NY Times has reported on? Bu-wah ha ha ha ha!!

This story was first reported in April 2003, just after the US led invasion of Iraq. Boy! Did those weapons go a missin' in a hurry!!

I'm not denying that the weapons were missing from their original location (al Qaqaa), but dispute the fact that it has not been proven that the weapons were discovered to be missing AFTER the invasion.

Come on Geek...you're a lawyer, or at least claim to be. You should be able to figure this one out.

As far as the sexist comment....are you really that thin-skinned? Let me guess...your a member of the plaintiff's bar?

It's interesting to hear these explosives described in language that implies that they occupy some middle ground between conventional weapons and WMD, as if such a thing is possible. Like when HMX is compared to "more conventional" explosives. How absurd.

But most telling of all. Lets just look at what has happend here. No one disputes that there were 380 tons of plastic explosives which might be used in nuclear weapons.

Were these explosives allowed under the Armistice agreement at the end of the first gulf war?

Perhaps our military failed to secure them, or perhaps They were looted before our military got there (seems more logical to me).

either way, Was it safer when Saddam controlled these?

I don't think our military are fools.

Let's also consider some other relevant points:

If Kerry had had his way, Saddam would still be in power in Iraq, and he would have those explosives...would that make anyone feel any safer?

Second, the most likely scenario for these explosives missing is that the UN dragged its feet for so long that it gave Saddam's forces ample time to relocate alot of their weapons. So blame the UN and Kerry's secret foreign allies for any failure to secure Iraq.

Correction...

I said in my previous post that I

"...dispute the fact that it has not been proven that weapons were discovered to be missing AFTER the invasion."

Poor syntax at best. What I was trying to convey is that I dispute that the weapons went missing after the invasion.

Damn public school system.

Another,

Correction -- If Kerry had his way Saddam would still be in power in Iraq and Kuwait!

In addition tehre are over 1 million tons of ordinance floating around in Iraq, and the breathless gasp over 380 is bogus.

Deny obfuscate lie - repeat, standard GOP modus operandi.

There are NOT over 1 million tons of ordinance previously tagged, bagged and virtualy handed to the administration by the IAEA (International ATOMIC energy agency) there are only 380 tons so disposed or rather there were until this maladministration became involved.

This war was fostered on the American public and the world in the name of removing WMD from Iraq, for the Bush administration to have dropped the ball in regards to securing material previously identified by the International ATOMIC energy agency is beyond Fubar and represents culpable negligence on the administration's part and is very relevant to the looming vote.

Let's also consider another major point: No president should micromanage a war...that would be an utter disaster for a CinC to do so, as LBJ proved with Vietnam.

So it's not really fair to blame Bush for all of the many moves made by our military on the ground. It isn't like the president can be on the ground with them directing their every move.
The president may be powerful, but he ain't that powerful.

I am always for the fostering of wars.

(sorry, couldn't resist)

postit: you make no sense whatsoever.

It is estimated that there were over 1 million tons of explosives in Iraq. We know that we've secured or destroyed over 400,000 tons of it.

Anyway you look at it, 380 tons is a drop in the bucket, whether the IAEA had tagged it or not. That is a bogus measure. Also, it doesn't speak too well of the IAEA if they only identified 380 tons out of over one million...and this is the institution that Kerry wants to trust with our security?

Nope...your argument fails again, postit...

Bill:

On MSNBC: Miklaszewski says:

The soldiers in the NBC report of April 10 were not involved in the search for these weapons and may not have even been near the HMX/RDV bunkers. There was no way they had the opportunity to search the entire complex--and they weren't looking for the IAEA-sealed materials.

However, they were gone by May 27, when the Iraq Survey Group went in.

So, the Iraq Survey Group searched and found no materials under IAEA seal. And the White House claims that no one in the Bush admin found out within the past month. That's inconsistent.

Either the Bush team verified that these explosives were gone, and made the appropriate notes, or they didn't. If they did, they're lying now. If they didn't, they're telling the truth now but they were guilty of incompetence.

Btw, there was PETN at this facility that disappeared as well.

Remember, as is made clear here folks. The Left offers only a vision of 'what should have happened' and no vision of 'what should be'.

"Trust us we have perfect hindsight."

Who the hell cares about 380 tons out of over one million? And to boot, this stuff has been missing since at least 2003...it's not exactly fresh news...and it's not exactly like Bush was the one on the ground conducting the search...

This is so much ado about nothing...

Let's discuss why the IAEA tagged this stuff in the first place.

So it's not really fair to blame Bush for all of the many moves made by our military on the ground. It isn't like the president can be on the ground with them directing their every move.
The president may be powerful, but he ain't that powerful.

The only person blaming the American military is you! and frankly I find it disgusting that you are willing to pin he blame for not securing this material on the military just to protect your political choice for President, that is partisanship gone too far for me. The military is doing a fine job in Iraq DESPITE the mismanagement of almost every aspect of the post war occupation by the political leadership.

For your information the International ATOMIC energy agency does not report directly to the US military on the ground in Iraq since the IAEA are not even ALLOWED in the country by this administration. But the administration was made aware of this material and its location by the IAEA and you would expect any competent administration to have prepared plans for securing it. Information like this flows from the top down in situaions like this not the reverse as you cowardly imply. Yet it seems from all the available evidence that while there were detailed plans to immediately seize the oilfields and the oiul ministry there were no such plans or perhaps simply not ENOUGH troops to immediately secure the Iraqi nuclear ministry and facilities or this material.

Chew on it !

There is a difference between "munitions" and "explosives" that most aren't making.

MT: As I said, the fact that the Bush administration didn't account for these things, and that the Pentagon still doesn't know the last time they saw the things (though there are conflicting reports), they are not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. That the explosives could have been gone without them knowing about it indicates gross incompetence.

That the explosives could have been gone without them knowing about it indicates gross incompetence.

That the NY Times could have reported the whole story but didn't indicates gross bias

Chew on this postit...

The IAEA is headed by one Mohammed El Baradei. El Baradei is very anti-Bush because the administration is attempting to deny El Baradei a second term due to his utter incompetance (see Libyan nuclear weapons program).

El Baradei leaked a false letter that reproduces a previously debunked story. The NY Times in their zeal to see Kerry elected president, run with the story without providing any of the evidence that shows this facility was void of the weapons BEFORE the United States invaded.

What part of this story do you and Geek not understand?? Do I have to get my "Team America" puppets out and put on a show for the "intellectually challenged" out in Bill's audience?

mt -

That was the coolest comment ever.

there is a way to discredit what someone says without personal insult.

It strengthens your position the more reasonable you are.
(witness Lawrence O'Donnell)

This site is viewed by many and posted to by few.

Always remember there are others reading - some may be undecideds.

Do your part, keep it pointed but keep the insults out and you will do better for your side.

At this point, a simple fact may be on order:

Uncommitted voters (the 1% that are left), do not grasp complicated arguments in the last week of a campaign. NYT says 380 tons of explosives are missing. Kerry says Bush = Bad because said explosives are missing. So far, the undecided can follow this line of reasoning, if they don't think too hard about it. Maybe this one story can change their mind, IF it were the last thing they heard on their way into the polling booth, LIKE CBS WANTED. The reality: There will be many more stories breaking between now and November 2nd. Some one way, some the other. This non-story will be completely dead, buried, and burned alive by then.

It matters to us, because it shows more signs of collusion at high levels. The story matters, it really does, but solely in the way that Bill has reported it here. Geeks "analysis" is so convoluted that a "simple" undecided would 1) never follow it, or 2) be exposed to it in the first place. Geek is not undecided, NO ONE here is undecided. If Geek were arguing that there was no collusion between the NYT, CBS, and the Kerry campaign, he might accomplish something, but trying to stick a totally minor military point on Bush personally is the absolute HEIGHT of folly. The people who agree with him will agree with him, and the sane people will realize that the left is ABSOLUTELY DESPERATE if this is all they can come up with.

Right of Center -

I hope that you aren't criticizing mt's comment, because the RULES OF BILL'S BLOG specify that personal insults are not only warranted, but encouraged, when I find them funny.

Furthermore, criticizing the funny commenter is against the rules. This isn't John Kerry's Yale debate team, and any comment that involves Team America puppets gets the nod from me.

In addition, fighting repeatedly endless spin that's resistant to logic gets wearying, right?

Thad,
I don't know how any of would know that for sure. There are all kinds of people who make voting decisions in all kinds of ways.

I've also noticed that none of my leftie commenters are touching my other thread about Kerry's previous statements about moving on Iraq SOONER, AFTER 9-11.

Interestting ...

Bill,

I said nothing about 'rules' .

I was unaware there were any rules.

Did you read the article in my link?

"...Bush will probably win. Why? Because his lead is outside the margin of error and more than a million Bush voters would have to switch over to Kerry to give the Massachusetts senator the victory."

Is THIS story gonna change a million minds? Please.

I will say that I think some of the leftie anger here today is because yet again one of their BIG stories has gone "clang" like the sounds of pails at the begining of steer season.

Right of Center -

Oh sorry, here you go:

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001101.php

I usually assess penalties in yards.

I'll give you 5 yards, repeat first down. ;-)

"clang" like the sounds of pails at the begining of steer season.

I'm hesitant to ask what that means...

Thad,

No, but it might change 600 in Florida, who knows?

It needs to be knocked down with the cold water of facts.

The NYT story has been discredited by NBC far more than anything has discredited the Swift Vets.

The MSNBC quibble is trying to convert lack of absolute certainty that the explosives were already gone into evidence that they were probably still there.

That logic only works with moonbats.

CBS on it's site is now reporting it in a much more balanced way.

CBS

the media landscape is really changing as we speak - and it bodes well for the Republic.

let me try that link again:

cbs news

Right of Center:

I do NOT in any way disagree with you "It needs to be knocked down with the cold water of facts." (and thanks for the link to CBS). I still say Bill's headline "Stolen Explosives: Nice Try, NY Times, sums it up.

The interesting thing in this thread has been the lefties trying to make the story stick somewhere, and failing miserably. Your comments helped, and made sense. (Sorry you got 5 yards, but it's Bill's rules). I'm only sorry I am not witty enough to make "the coolest comment ever".

To coin a phrase (thanks WS (Romeo and Juliet, for the folks who weren't made to memorize it in the 10th grade)): "I'm sick and pale with grief that thou mc, hast made a comment that is way more cool than mine."

You know, being a combat engineer and dealing whit this type of explosive stuff for 7 1/2 years, I can say 380 ton ain't crap! I PERSONALLY have detonated 3 tons of c-4 (rdx) myself just for training. Big whoop-de-do. It make a big bang, but considering Saddam had over 600,000 tons scattered throughout the country and we have a limited number of troops to that could be assigned for guard duty, I am soooooo not surprised that some went missing at some point. It is called "fog of war".

Thanks for the kudos Bill. Let's just say visiting this site everyday inspired me!

Oops. NBC is confused:

"Embedded Reporter Saw No Explosives Search"

And a link to the video

The real question is what is the NEXT recycled story they will print tomorrow?

Like I stated in the first post,

"The challenge is now we will see these invented non news stories every day even though the LSM knows they are not true.

They are so desperate to grab onto anything that helps their skerry campaign, all journalistic integrity is gone out the window for the benfit of the cause dejour."

They don't have any integrity. NONE. But luckily, because of the internet, gone are the days of 100% compliance in belief for what the media says is true.

It is not that people are smarter now, they are just better informed and can recognize a bowl of crap when they see it.

The NYT story is just that, a bowl of crap. What they failed to report is just as important as the likelihood these were shipped out prior to our troops arriving.

That place didn't just hold the high explosives, they held other stuff as well.

Skerry is desperate and the lame Stream media is more than complicit in their desire to lie whatever way they can, and rebuild after the election.

Same old crap as what they have done before.

Regards,
Sonar5

Kerry Spot has some interesting entries on the explosive story.

HMX is not C-4, and it is not plastic explosive. It is a powder, similar to cornstarch. You can hit it with a hammer and it won't explode. It has to be blended and fused to actually be a usable explosive; this is not easy, and requires an appropriate manufacturing facility to do the job. This is why it isn't being used in IED; it isn't fused and it isn't blended into any usable form. If the stuff is indeed "missing," and that point remains in doubt, it is probably in Syria, where it could actually be processed into something useful.

If "looters" stole the stuff, it would be essentially worthless to them, unless they could fence it to explosive experts.

It also is not transported in any old truck. Because it is a powder, it requires a truck similar to a grain trailer, that is closed to wind and rain. It isn't transported on pallets, like artillery shells would be.

The quaqaa facility is huge. The 101st was actually at Quaquaa after the 3rd ID; it was not the first US unit to arrive in that area. The most noticeable find there, initially, if you will remember, was all the chemical warfare material -- chemical suits and antropine (that's what got all the press at the time).

I think it is time to put a little common sense into this story.

#1 our guys were looking for WMD's at that time, I do not believe the reporters spin that there was no search of that facility. There may not have been one done by the gusy she was immediately with, but I do not believe that the soldiers didn't look for weapons.

#2 Getting almost 400 tons of anything moved is not an easy task. It isn't going to be carried out by hand, it is going to be moved by truck, and during or after the war, I think somebody would have seen the convoy rolling.

I think this stuff was moved before the war.

I just don't see it as being feasible for the stuff to have dissappeared after the invasion.

Geraghty has also received some interesting letters about that NBC reporter's notion that our soldiers didn't search for the explosives and therefore overlooked them. Sadly, at this point we have to assume the NBC reporter is biased against Bush and spinning madly (what a sad state of affairs when one has to assume this of the press rather than merely be on the lookout for it). Also, does the NBC reporter have any training in recognizing military search protocols? Not likely.

Who knows when the explosives went missing? Our military says they went missing before we got there, but who knows? Anyway, there is no evidence that our soldiers dropped the ball, so Kerry will apologize for saying, “This is one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the great blunders of this administration." Of course, he will. He's always been mainly concerned about what's right, not his career.

Since the explosives can't be found they clearly didn't exist. Just like the WMD.

This proves the UN lied about the explosives!

Who believes the GIs didn't check out every warehouse nook and cranny for hostiles? Isn't that a search?

Bill, you said:

"The explosives were there when the IAEA left Iraq before the war, but not there after the war. It is unclear when they were removed, but were likely removed by the regime before or during the war, or looters during the war."

Isn't this the point? We wanted to get to Saddam because we thought he had WMD's. We did not want the WMD's to get into the hands of terrorists. So if we knew of specific weapons, or munitions that could be used to cause mass destruction, then why did we not do more to get them? Wasn't that the goal?

Then you say:

"In addition there are over 1 million tons of ordinance floating around in Iraq, and the breathless gasp over 380 is bogus."

Great logic - there are over a million terrorists in the world, why worry about 380?

Isn't this the point? We wanted to get to Saddam because we thought he had WMD's. We did not want the WMD's to get into the hands of terrorists. So if we knew of specific weapons, or munitions that could be used to cause mass destruction, then why did we not do more to get them? Wasn't that the goal?

Your argument relies on two things:

1. That the arms would be safer in Saddam's custody.
2. The explosives really had special utilty regarding WMD's - THEY DONT.

Great logic - there are over a million terrorists in the world, why worry about 380?

No, "great logic" on your part, genius. The terrorist HAVE plenty of explosives, and you set an unreasonable standard by demanding that the US Military is perfect in securing 100% of them. 98.8% isn't good enough. And then somehow, you tie this back to George Bush.

Of course we need to worry about ANY missing explosives, but you cannot extrapolate some larger sense of incompetence based on the loss of a microscopic fraction of the munitions in that country.

Answer my question on the other thread, please.

"Isn't this the point? We wanted to get to Saddam because we thought he had WMD's. We did not want the WMD's to get into the hands of terrorists. So if we knew of specific weapons, or munitions that could be used to cause mass destruction, then why did we not do more to get them? Wasn't that the goal?"

SO you are arguing then that Bush spent too much time on diplomacy, and should have gotten control of the explosives sooner?

According to your logic, the reason the explosives went missing before the invasion, was because we gave Saddam plenty of warning, and plenty of time to move. Gotta thank all those corrupt individuals at the UN for that one. Perhaps had France and Russia not been on the take, Saddam wouldn't have had so much time to prepare for war and move his stuff.

According to the UN, and based on their own records, there are tons of all sorts of WMD that are "missing" and unaccounted for, including anthrax, VX, and Sarin. Iraq said it destroyed those materials before inspections were re-instituted; the MSM has bought that hook, line, and sinker.

It's also interesting that HMX and RDX are now considered WMD by some. If that's the case, then we have uncovered and captured massive caches of WMD in Iraq. So, Bush didn't "lie" after all.

Here's the new logic, a week before the election.

If something is actually found by the US, it isn't WMD.

If something is allegedly missing, and the US was arguably responsible for it, then it qualifies as WMD (and may trigger the end of Western Civilization as we know it).

Previously debunked? Wow, care to back that up with a link?

Here it is for you, MT:

The Bush administration, according to their own statements:

HAS NO FREAKING CLUE WHEN THOSE EXPLOSIVES WENT MISSING. THEY NEVER BOTHERED TO ACCOUNT FOR THEM

That's their version of events.

Why is the story breaking now?

Because the Iraqi government just made its report to the IAEA.

Bottom line: Either the Bush administration was utterly delinquent in keeping track of these explosives, or they lied about and covered up the disappearance of these explosives.

The ONLY reason this story is breaking now is that the Bush administration stonewalled as long as it could on these explosives. Unfortunately, that stone wall crumbled a week before the election.

And spare me the "evil furriners" conspiracy theory. Had the Bush administration been both honest and competent in dealing with these explosives, there never would have been a story.

Did I miss the puppet show? Since that post, no postit or Geek, Esq.

That post must have taken you about a minute per word.

Instapundit also asks the obvious question: If 380 tons of high-quality "explosives" have been looted, stolen, or hijacked by the bad guys, why haven't they been used?

Possible answers:

1. The IAEA memo is a fraud; there are no missing explosives. Motivation: US opposition to Al Baridei's third term as chief of the IAEA.
Therefore, no explosives are "missing;" it's a political hoax.

2. Saddam's regime moved the explosives before US forces arrived, either to Syria, Jordan, or to another location in Iraq. If they are still in Iraq, they are essentially worthless, unless they can be combined with appropriate processing facilities, which is highly unlikely.

3. They were in fact "looted." All looters know just what to take from gigantic weapons dumps; just ask one. Having been looted, and having been delivered to some bad guys, the bad guys lack either the expertise or the processing equipment to do anything with the stuff, so they just keep 380 tons of contraband in extra space in the garage.

Personally, I blame bookkeeping. It's all been lost in the fog of war. I don't trust any of this "accounting."

Geek,

It was reading the thread, not refreshing and then posting. Your insult wasn't funny. I wonder what Bill will think?

The ONLY reason this story is breaking now is that the Bush administration stonewalled as long as it could on these explosives. Unfortunately, that stone wall crumbled a week before the election.

This is rich. And I guess that's also the reason CBS was going to wait until the 31st to air the story... because the wall fell this week... regarding 0.058% of Iraq's weapons that vanished... when? When did they actually show up missing? Before we got there? Do we know?

I think that the obvious question should be, "If we can’t find 300 tons of conventional weapons that were known to exist, then wouldn't one think it possible for a similar amount of WMD to disappear?" Why the hell isn't anyone asking this question? And why is Kerry now suddenly so concerned about weapons that are in Iraq? Isn't he already taking his eye off the ball? I thought he said there was no threat from Iraq and his contention was that Osama is the ONLY issue?

Another common sense question.

Tons of conventional weapons were left at the dump-things that would be useful to a looter like AK47's, various mines and similar explosives. Things a person could carry home, and use without any knowledge.

But what is missing is something that more than likely was in a form that was no so easily used, easy to carry and useful to the average looter. And even if the looters were insurgents, why would they only take the explosives and leave behind other weapons equally useful to their cause?

Sorry, but the more I try to figure out a way for the looters to have carried this stuff off, the more the scenaria is saying "NO WAY" Those explosives were moved before our guys ever showed up-the big question is where they were moved to and who has them now.

People are suspending all common sense here in order to play a gotcha game with Bush, and it just isn't holding up.

Hoodlumman:

People who don't have a sense of humor about themselves shouldn't talk trash.

This was a story that ran in the New York Times yesterday. It did not debut on 60 Minutes on October 31.

There was either incompetence and dereliction or lies, deception, and a coverup on the part of the Bush Administration/CPA, or both. Those are your choices.

Just Me:

Many of the insurgents are remnants of the Baathist regime. I would not be surprised at all if those elements knew about those explosives and carried them off.

Again, I'll fully admit that we don't know when those explosives disappeared, other than they disappeared between March 3 and May 27 of 2003.

Why this is such a story that is not going away is that either:

1) The Bush administration didn't know or care what happened to these weapons until very, very recently--which is a red flag for incompetence and dereliction; or

2) They knew, but lied about it and did everything they could to conceal the fate of these explosives from the IAEA by lying their asses off--which lies continue to this day.

Simply put, there is no way this administration has been both honest and competent in connection with this matter.

Jesus, so many comments I can't even read 'em all.

380 tons of common high explosives may have gone missing on our watch, or may not. Either way, BFD. You can't secure all that shit in the middle of a war; HE is everywhere in a modern war. You can recover enough Composition B from a single dud artillery for many Pan Am 103s. And these 380 tons aren't any more scary than the hundreds of thousands of tons of other HE out there. RDX is about 1.5 times as powerful as TNT. HMX is supposedly slightly more powerful. Jesus friggin' Christ, people, get a life. Nothing bad will happen because of these missing explosives that wouldn't have happened if we had them in our hot little hands right now.

I have a great sense of humor, I just felt you (or anyone) could do better than "you type slow."

There was either incompetence and dereliction or lies, deception, and a coverup on the part of the Hussein regime. Those are your choices.

I've modified your answer to be accurate. I now accept that answer. Yes, in a country filled with RPGs, artillery shells, grenedes and the like, we failed to protect 380 tons of powder... that probably wasn't there when we arrived.

So, the conservative take on this is "BFD/SFW."

I see administration spinners making this point, but not experts.

Geek -

There was either incompetence and dereliction or lies, deception, and a coverup on the part of the Bush Administration/CPA, or both. Those are your choices.

I'm starting to think that you are nuts. Explosives were tagged by the UN before the war. Inspectors left. No explosives were found one month later, during the invasion. No explosives were found less than a week after that. No explosives were found by the US arms inspectors a month after that.

Now a memo comes up pointing to missing explosives.

What is delinquent about the Bush ADministration again?

Where did they lie to the IAEA?

How is the failure to find 380 tons out of 1 million tons of explosives George Bush's fault, or a gross sign of incompetence, when there is no proof that the explosives were even there when the war started?

Because the Bush Admin didn't issue a press release to Geek Esq, saying, "hey we didn't find this 380 tons of munitions? Because we don't know where they are?"

And since all-caps suits you:

HOW THE FUCK DOES THE BUSH ADMIN BEAR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE US MILITARY FAILING TO ACCOUNT FOR .002% OF THE LOOSE HIGH EXPLOSIVE MATERIAL IN IRAQ?

I'm starting to thing that you're mad.

Do I have to break out some puppets?

Geek-the administration is hardly responsible for things that went missing before our invasion force even entered the country.

Also, why would the insurgents (baathist or otherwise) take only the HMX, and not all the other stuff that was more easily carried away, and actually more useful. To date not a single ounce of HMX has been used to attack our soldiers-but plenty of IED's and other explosive weapons have.

See that is the real problem here-why loot it after the fact? And how do you sneak 380 tons of anything around a war zone-this stuff isn't carried easily.

Overlooked in this hysteria is the fact that the missing materials are not explosives themselves but rather the ingredients for explosives. Neither of the materials were in a form easily converted into an explosive devise. The materials would be useful for somebody who had a plastic explosives factory but for your average terrorist of insurgent they would be utterly useless.

There was little reason for these items to be high on the list of things to be secured. There were a lot more immediate concerns to attend to. There is not even the suggestion of evidence that any of this materials has been used anywhere in Iraq. Given its form, it is unlikely to be used by anybody inside the country.

If it does find use it will be because somebody smuggled it to Syria or Iraq were it could be converted to a weaponized form.

This is how FOXNews.com is reporting it:

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.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said coalition forces were present in the vicinity of the site both during and after major combat operations, which ended May 1, 2003 — and searched the facility but found none of the explosives material in question. That raised the possibility that the explosives had disappeared before U.S. soldiers could secure the site in the immediate invasion aftermath.
The Pentagon would not say whether it had informed the nuclear agency at that point that the conventional explosives were not where they were supposed to be.
Saddam's regime used Al-Qaqaa as a key part of its effort to build a nuclear bomb. Although the missing materials are conventional explosives known as HMX and RDX, the Vienna-based IAEA became involved because HMX is a "dual use" substance powerful enough to ignite the fissile material in an atomic bomb and set off a nuclear chain reaction.
Both are key components in plastic explosives such as C-4 and Semtex, which are so powerful that Libyan terrorists needed just a pound to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 170 people.

Bill - to you said:

"Your argument relies on two things:
1. That the arms would be safer in Saddam's custody.
2. The explosives really had special utilty regarding WMD's - THEY DONT."

First, once we had the inspector's in Iraq, we had them under control. No one was going to leave Iraq and just let Saddam have these - not even Michael Moore is that stupid.

Second - They seem to me to be very serious type explosives. If we knew they were missing in May 2003, what did we do about it?

(and Bill, sorry if I don't respond to your responses fast enough, I am a full-time law student, I am suppose to be studying!)

Bill:

1. When did the Bush administration/Condi Rice know they were gone? Pick a month and year. Then I will demonstrate my point.

2. April 4. Explosives WERE found at the site.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030405-chem-readiness01.htm

"UN weapons inspectors went repeatedly to the vast al Qa Qaa complex, most recently on March 8. But they found nothing during spot visits to some of the 1,100 buildings at the site 40 kilometres south of Baghdad.

Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, said troops found thousands of five-centimetre by 12-centimetre boxes, each containing three vials of WHITE POWDER, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in chemical warfare.

A senior U.S. official familiar with initial testing said the powder was believed to be explosives. The finding would be consistent with the plant's stated production capabilities in the field of basic raw materials for explosives and propellants. "

What does RDX look like:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts78.html

"RDX stands for Royal Demolition eXplosive. It is also known as cyclonite or hexogen. The chemical name for RDX is 1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine. It is a WHITE POWDER and is very explosive."

3. April 10. US troops pass through but DO NOT SEARCH for these materials. They may not have even BEEN NEAR THE BUNKERS HOLDING THESE EXPLOSIVES. They didn't find these explosives at the time? No effing sh!t. If you don't look for something like this, or even know about it, of course you're not going to find it.

Clinging to a report that people who weren't looking for explosives and may not have even been near where the explosives were stored is really desperate. You're better than this.

4. David Kay (remember him) says he doubts that the stuff disappeared before the invasion.

So, you have bubkus for evidence showing that the stuff was gone before US troops got there, and I have solid evidence that the stuff was there as of April 4, 2003.

I get my information from respected news outlets. You get yours from puppets. I win.

As far as the lies, Bill:

When did the CPA/Bush administration learn that this stuff was gone? Why did they thwart the IAEA's attempts to ascertain the fate of the explosives?

Rollins -

Read your own citation:

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said coalition forces were present in the vicinity of the site both during and after major combat operations, which ended May 1, 2003 — and searched the facility but found none of the explosives material in question.

THEY WEREN'T THERE.

If we knew they were missing in May 2003, what did we do about it?

This comment is so stunningly ... ... naive (?) ... I'm not even sure how to respond ... 380/1,000,000 tons of explosives in Iraq are missing and ... "what did we do about it?"

Nothing? Look for them? With an almost 0% chance of finding them because they were moved by Saddam Hussein before the war?

Bill:

What evidence do you have that the explosives were gone before April 4, 2003?

And now that you can't in good faith rely on the NBC report (even NBC says so), what proof do you have that the explosives were gone on April 10, 2003?

This is an outrage. How can they fail to secure that amount of conventional explosives? Now terrorists who would have had no access whatsoever to them will have their hands on them. What will we hear next, that Bush failed to secure the 3 billion gallons of water loose in Iraq? Terrorists could get ahold of that and drown people with it!

But seriously, folks, anyone who wants to make a bomb can make one, anywhere in the world, in their kitchen. Iraq was already flooded with HE anyways. Even if there are 380 tons of HE that went somewhere, it doesn't make anyone the least bit more in danger.

I remember a girl I went to school with, once, she was 18. We were assigned to come up with a theoretical diplomatic solution to end terrorist bombings in Israel. Her solution? Make it illegal for the IAF to make bombs.

Yes, you read that right. In her ignorant little mind, she assumed that the only kind of bomb was the one dropped from planes. The PLO had no planes, ergo, they must have gotten the bombs from the IAF. How nice of the IAF to give them to them. You should have seen the way her mouth hung open when I explained a half dozen ways to make bombs.

I swear, some people are so stupid I wonder how they manage to keep breathing.

Hey, Geek, you want some proof that these explosives weren't there...how about from a military guy who was there (courtesy of Instanpundit):
"I understand your questions about the 3rd ID being there 1 week before us, but I think I should offer up a military perspective for you. I was with the 101st when we RIP'd (Relieved in Place) the 3rd ID in that region.

380 tons of explosives would require about 40 truckloads to haul it away. It would have taken more than 1 week (and an unbelievable amount of man-hours and heavy-moving equipment) simply to load the trucks. To imply that those trucks could have been loaded and then driven away unnoticed, under the watchful eye of the 3rd ID is absolutely ludicrous."

Plus, how about this simple question: if these were stolen by looted by terrorists after we took over in Iraq, how come they haven't been used yet...they've had 18 months...what are they waiting for?

This is all such a bogus story in the first place...a real yawner...

Here's a great slogan:
On Nov 2, say YES to our TROOPS and say NO to John Kerry...

That about sums it up...once again Kerry is really slandering our troops, accusing them of doing a poor job...

Kerry would be the most anti-American president ever...I would really fear for the country if Kerry were to win...

Geek and Postit say this is a lie by the Administration. How they come by that conclusion I cannot figure out.

It may have been a very cursory inspection (April 10? One day after Saddam's statue was taken down on TV?), but to know troops (and an NBC reporter) went through at least some of it and not try to find out is more than irresponsible, it is tantamount to a direct lie. Three sentences of a four-online-page article is not sufficient for a copout.

Note - Josh Marshall says the Pentagon says nothing like a search was done until May 27. No IAEA-sealed explosives were found. And the NBC reporter says there was no actual search April 10. Again, though, neither the Times nor, apparently, CBS actually asked anyone until after the story was on the streets.

Bah! Humbug!

AT:

1. Have you seen the forensics reports on all of the explosions set off by insurgents in Iraq?

2. How do you account for the likely presence of RDX at the site as late as April 4, 2003?

3. Would a convoy of 40 trucks have been any less noticeable during the immediate pre-war period? Remember--this was a major, major WMD-related site. It had nuclear implications, as well as being storage place for these explosives. The US must have been watching it. Forty trucks certainly wouldn't have evaded detection.

AT:

Bush supporters are the ones trying to slur the troops by blaming the military instead of accepting responsibility for this.

JA: The administration says it didn't know these explosives were gone until October 2004. If they're telling the truth, that means they didn't pay attention to these explosives until the IAEA told them that they were gone.

That means there are two scenarios:

1. Nobody in the US military ever bothered telling Condi Rice that virtually everything of interest at this facility was gone, and that Condi Rice and Rumsfeld never bothered to inquire about it; or

2. The administration is lying.

At least one of those two scenarios are true.

Geek,

No one is getting slurred. Mistakes happen when an army invades a country the size of California.

You are also demanding that negative be proven, when in fact you should prove the initial positive before the allegations were made.

Can't you grasp how deep your spin is on this?

Context free about the relevance.

Context free about the ultimate responsibility.

Get a grip.

Hey Geek-
You keep spinning and missing the point entirely: The stuff was GONE when our guys showed up. The bigger question is, if the UN was in charge of the place (yeah, right!) prior to the war, did the UN inspectors know that the explosives were moved prior to the invasion? Did the UN people, in fact, collude with the Saddam regime in moving the stuff out of the country? Given the corruption and outright hostility of the UN bureaucracy to the concerns of US security, it certainly seems plausible.

Bill:

I'm arguing with facts and logic.

If there are holes in my argument, point them out.

If your entire argument is that the disappearance of these explosives, and the administration's failure to ever account for them, is not important enough to merit discussion, so be it.

If you can muster additional specific arguments against what I'm saying, I'd love to hear it. Show me where I'm wrong.

Mark Tinder:

Evidence, please. Please provide sources other than Drudge and blogs4Bush.

No one has provided proof that those weapons were gone by the time US troops arrived at the scene.

1. It is not a huge deal that 380/1,000,000 tons of ordinance is gone.

2. By all appearances - two inspections during the war, and one one month after, THEY WEREN'T THERE. 40 trucks worth of material couldn't be moved in and out during or after the conflict. The Iraqis likely moved them before the war.

3. The IAEA, along with other int'l organizations, were not responsible for conducting inspections.

4. Did I mention - by all appearances, they weren't there?

5. You demand proof for negatives (prove that none of them were used in IED's) rather than providing proof that they were, or even having proof that there were any explosives there in the first place to be looted and thus be the responsibility of the Bush Admin, rather than the military planners that they defer to to carry out the strategy.

You then say that we malign the troops instead of the Bush Admin, when the military personnel have ...

oh I can't, I just can't. There's no way I will make headway on this.

I could go on for hours.

I don't have any more energy.

Bill:

Which inspections during the war are proof that the explosives were gone?

The only inspection that does that is the May 27, 2003 inspection.

That isn't my spin--that is the rock hard truth. "By all appearances"= BC04 Spin.

The bottom line here is that we don't know what happened to this stuff because the administration didn't care about it. It wasn't important enough, in the view of the administration, for Condi or Rummy to ask or for anybody to bother telling them.

That is negligence. A WMD-related site with 380 tons of high explosives is stripped of its most dangerous components, and that information never found its way up to our National Security decision makers. That is completely indefensible, and anyone who's being completely honest will concede that.

I symapthize--your guy is going to be playing defense on this all week because he really doesn't have a defense.

Geek - "JA: The administration says it didn't know these explosives were gone until October 2004."

Quite possible. A bad thing, I agree, but apparently after the end of May 2003 the Coalition did not itself post guards there. Why not is far from clear.

That still ain't a lie. A mistake, perhaps a big one, but not a lie.

Could have something to do with priorities, though. Remember, when troops got to a known nuclear facility, they found storage barrels looted, emptied, being used to store water - and the yellowcake which had been in those barrels being worn as ornamentation!

We need to know more. And I still think the NYTimes (and probably CBS) never asked questions, which to me is an indication they did not want answers they might not like - sort of like a lawyer will not ask a question in court if not at least 98% sure of the answer AND that it will help his case.

Bill -

I asked: "If we knew they were missing in May 2003, what did we do about it?" You replied: This comment is so stunningly ... ... naive (?) ... I'm not even sure how to respond ... 380/1,000,000 tons of explosives in Iraq are missing and ... "what did we do about it?"

Are you saying that all of the 1 million tons of explosives were as potentially dangerous as these? Did we know where all 1 million tons were? If they were all this dangerous, then was it wise to go into the country without planning for what would happen to them? When the inspectors were there, we knew where the explosives were, and could have destroyed them. Now we don't know where they are, and will have to chase after them.

These concerns were brought up before the invasion. This goes to the point of our planning for the war - not any failure of the troops.

And DUMBocratic Underground strikes again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2543981

This Geek Esq. person is part of DUH? And I'm supposed to take him seriously now? I knew I was smelling moonbat. Kool-aid...tin-foil hats...check.

So maybe I am confused and need a "puppet instructional period", but what part of "c-4 is not semtex" or any of this other splitting of hairs have to do with the obvious and continuous anti-Bush bias shoved down the throats of the electorate?

Where besides here can we preach to the masses instead of the choir?

MT - ...best comment ever... I second that

Hah. It's positively glorious watching you all try to cover your butts on this overwhelming evidence of incompentence from the boys that are writing the book on ineptitude, fraud, and murder....

....spin, spin, spin; you're all spinning like a top.

Good luck. The story's real; it's going to stick like dog crap on the bottom of this foul and evil administration's shoes - just as they walk into the voting booth for their glorious defeat at the hands of an awakening American Republic.

Take a deep breath...it's democracy, my friends. Democracy.

You DUH'ers are so cute.

I'd just like to say, being from the left, that Geek and these guys are nutjobs. After all the reports out there about this in the media and on blogs, which I've read, I have to say I have not come to any real conclusions here, and am just going to have to wait and see, but it seems fairly likely that the explosives were moved before the invasion. I definitely agree that based on all the conflicting reports for the msm to jump all over this as a Bush failure right out of the gate is certainly unfair and pretty stupid, but I think it has more to do with the fact that it has teeth--whereas the Kerry Sec. Council story doesn't (from the msm perspective)--than bias. Anyway, I'm sure there will be some more ugly Kerry stuff this week for them to jump on. Ooh, maybe that Kerry's really a robot controlled by the North Vietnamese! Look at him go!

Anyone that says "BushCo" gets deleted and banned.

The same thing goes for Chimpy, Chimperor, and Hallibechtel.

350 tons of explosives or securing the southern oil wells, decisions decisions, did I tell ya it's hard work?

So wait, they were there on 4/4 when we looked, but were gone on 4/10 when we looked? Those Iraqis work quickly and, apparently, invisibly.

Mantis -

Where does it say they were there on 4-4?

Find a member of the 101st Airbourne and a member of the 3rd Infantry Division who was at Al Qaqaa on the dates in Question 04/10/2003 and 04/03/2003. i.e. Soldiers, who are now stateside due to transfers or, unfortunately, injury (preferably currently civilian).

Interview them on the issues in question. Did they conduct a search for any weapons while they were at Al Qaqaa? Were the weapons HMX and RDX at Al Qaqaa when they were there?

Get a military logistics expert to explain how difficult it would be for looters to carry off 380 tons of explosives without being caught once the Army had overrun the base. Make animations in Macromedia Flash to illustrate if possible.

Comment: HMX/RDX can be used to detonate nuclear weapons and by retaining them, Saddam Hussein was violating a number of UN resolutions. Furthermore, knowing how powerful these weapons are, post 9/11 and knowing Saddam Hussein's record, how could the UN have allowed him to keep them?

PUT EVERYONE ON VIDEO IN DIGITAL FORMAT i.e. mpeg and put it up on a site. Send to Drudge, FoxNews and get links from the entire right side of the blogosphere.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/chrono_jan_03.shtml

This page (an official IAEA site) has the first worries about 'missing HMX' that I see.

That's in January 2003 - and there isn't a later inspection by the IAEA looking for HMX. (The same page has a list of where they inspected, when, and usually why.)

AP: Lt. Gen Boykin says special weapons team inspected site March 27th and found nothing...

http://stones-cry-out.blogspot.com/2004/10/ap-report-special-weapons-team.html

Stones Cry Out

Sorry, Bill, just saw this and am further confused. It says that on April 4:

"Closer to Baghdad, troops at Iraq's largest military industrial complex found nerve agent antidotes, documents describing chemical warfare and a white powder that appeared to be used for explosives.

UN weapons inspectors went repeatedly to the vast al Qa Qaa complex, most recently on March 8. But they found nothing during spot visits to some of the 1,100 buildings at the site 40 kilometres south of Baghdad.

Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, said troops found thousands of five-centimetre by 12-centimetre boxes, each containing three vials of white powder, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in chemical warfare. "

sorry if this was mentioned further up and I missed it.

Let's use a little bit of common sense here: it seems military experts think it would have taken about 40 truck loads to haul those explosives out of there, and then it would have taken a team of men at least a week to load it all.

That is not the type of operation that lends itself to looters...the idea that looters could have accomplished that, with all of our troop activity in the region, is ludicrous. The most likely explanation, using Ocham's razor principle, is that Saddam and his henchmen moved the stuff before the invasion. It's quite simple.

The explosives clearly were moved as part of Saddam's preparation for the war...it's not like he didn't have some advanced warning.

As Belmont Club points out:
The price of passing the “Global Test” was very high; and having been gypped once, there are some who are still eager to be taken to the cleaners again.

So lay the blame for these missing explosives on the UN, and on people like Kerry who were and are obsessed with getting international approval for everything we do.

This incident shows the bankruptcy of Kerry's global test policy.

Geek, do you comprehend what it takes to move 380 TONS of stuff? Quite simply, it takes a massive force that probably is only available to state-sponsored units. Insurgents taking this stuff is a joke that only Kerry supporters choose to accept as fact.

Geek why don't you try to think a little more critically here.

"And now that you can't in good faith rely on the NBC report (even NBC says so), what proof do you have that the explosives were gone on April 10, 2003?"

Just think for a minute-think plausible as well

#1 It takes a large convoy of trucks to move that much explosives. This wasn't a job, where a bunch of looters are going to fill a few napsacks or the trunk of a car or back of a pick up truck.

#2 You are maintaining that not only did our soldiers miss it the first time around, but that they also missed a convoy of some 35-40 non coalition trucks going into the compound, and then leaving with the rigs full of explosives.

#3 We may not have had troops camped out at the weapons depot itself, but we had our troops, and supply convoys going up and down the roads heading into Baghdad. I just don't think our troops are that incompetent, and this kind of mistake is not one that is made at the administration level, but at the people on the ground fighting the war level.

#4 The looters took explosives that had to be mixed in order to make them useful, but left behind plenty of other explosive devices and weapons that were immediately useful.

#4 There were about a million tons of weapons and explosives in Iraq. Saddam was moving weapons around in the weeks before the war, it is very plausible and possible that he ordered the explosives moved, and even the IAEA has said that Saddam had likely moved the stuff, as was his habit before a bombing raid-that was buried deep in the NYT original article.

Nobody can say for sure when those explosives disapeared, but putting on my critical thinking cap, I think the most plausible conclusion is that they were more likely moved before the war, rather than during or right after.

What part of this story do you and Geek not understand?? Do I have to get my "Team America" puppets out and put on a show for the "intellectually challenged" out in Bill's audience?

F--k yeah!

If I'm not mistaken, the missing explosives are a) of a type particularly useful to someone interested in building a nuclear weapon (hence the IAEA's interest), and b) not in a form particularly conducive to fabricating improvised explosive devices.

If that's the case, is it more likely that the explosives were removed a) immediately prior to, or in the initial stages of the war by a Hussein regime interested in reconstituting its nuclear program at a later date, or b) after the war by insurgents interested in producing IEDs, despite the fact that a million tons or so of more-useful ordinance was floating around?

ADK,

Or it was taken by people who had the means to do so and the expertise to use the explosives in a way more sophisticated than an improvised device, but not nuclear (that's the easy stuff to get when building a nuke). Though when, it seems, is still the question.

Geek, do you comprehend what it takes to move 380 TONS of stuff? Quite simply, it takes a massive force that probably is only available to state-sponsored units. Insurgents taking this stuff is a joke that only Kerry supporters choose to accept as fact.

I think simple mathematics will do the trick:

380 (short US)Tons= 760,000 pounds

Typical maximum load limit of a articulated lorry = 80,000 pounds

760/80= 9-10 Semi trucks.

That's quite a few trucks, assuming they are packed to the maximum safe weight. In reality, it is most likely going to take about twice as many. And then, you are going to need to loading equipment and manpower. I don't think a few jihad-heads with a Toyota truck are going to haul it away.

1. The prior posts demonstrate that both the witnesses and the logic (the difficulty of moving that much stuff) is on the side of concluding that Saddam moved the explosives shortly before we got there.
2. Even if the explosives were taken after a date by which we should have had control, would that mistake be evidence of incompetence by the politicians (Bush) or by someone in the military chain of command? Commenters on both sides should ask themselves: where were you on the "blame the politicians" issue in 1993 during the Clinton administration when our troops were ambushed and killed in Somalia? In that instance, the SecDef expressly denied requests for armor to deal with the very situation that led to the deaths. Here, there was no politician who denied a field-level request for more troops to secure these explosives, because there is no report that any military officer made any such request. Lefties who let Clinton off the hook on Somalia back in 1993 don't have any credibility to blame Bush on this one. And by the way, declaring that now, "in hindsight," you should have blamed Clinton in 1993 doesn't count, if you didn't blame him in 1993.
3. These explosives are said to be extra-dangerous because they can be used to trigger nuclear bombs. Isn't this equivalent to saying that these explosives are like nuclear bomb components? Is it really a pro-Kerry argument to assert that Iraq had WMD components, when that admission supports one of the reasons for invading Iraq and deposing the man (Saddam) who wanted to make WMDs?
4. Here is another way the NYT could have written this story: "WMD components (high-energy explosives) found in Iraq prior to war, confirming one rationale for invasion, but moved to secret location by Saddam during window of opportunity due to delay as Bush sought to increase the international coalition to include France and Germany." And no doubt, that is how the Times would have written the story -- if Bush was a Democrat and Kerry a Republican.

And if a Toyota truck can haul all that away...

WHERE CAN I GET ONE OF THOSE SUM'BITCHES?!

3. These explosives are said to be extra-dangerous because they can be used to trigger nuclear bombs. Isn't this equivalent to saying that these explosives are like nuclear bomb components?

Well, not necessarily, because the HE has to be shaped in such a way that the resulting force is not explosive, but implosive, equally on all sides. That requires high mathematics and expertise...something a scraggly jihad-head is not likely to have.

Besides, if you use a two-part "gun barrel" method (think Little Boy), you don't even need that.

After following comments - 300+T of Explosives found in WMD are missing from a country where no WMD explosives exists. GW can't win - he didn't find and secure non-existant...I'm confused. JK would have gone there personally and found the non-existent WMD explosives but GW left it to Frank's incompetent, bungling troops...
I think that's what I'm hearing

"Or it was taken by people who had the means to do so and the expertise to use the explosives in a way more sophisticated than an improvised device, but not nuclear (that's the easy stuff to get when building a nuke). Though when, it seems, is still the question."

Keeping in mind that it is going to take a pretty large convoy to move the stuff, and a pretty good sized labor force to load it, and all in an area where our troops were actively moving.

That is the plausibility factor for me, I just don't see how a group of insurgents is going to remove these explosives and move them in such a way that they aren't going to be noticed by the military in the area. Also, when you consider that said insurgents chose to take the stuff, that had to be proccessed further to become useful, but left behind the easily used stuff-it just isn't making sense.

We may never know exactly when the stuff was moved, but the most plausible explaination is that it was moved and hidden/hauled elsewhere before the invasion took place.

An aside:

There is no 'i' in 'team'. There is also no 'i' in 'ordnance'.

</petpeeve>

There are a variety of things to say, but I'll limit myself to these two points, for the moment.

While Drudge and the Kerry Spot and various other nincompoops were hyping the misleading and incorrect NBC news story ("we visited the joint on 4/10 and found nothing!"), a story which was parroted by Fox and CNN, the NYT asked the commander of the unit who was there that day. Here's what he said:

"We happened to stumble on it ... I didn't know what the place was supposed to be. We did not get involved in any of the bunkers. It was not our mission. It was not our focus. We were just stopping there on our way to Baghdad. The plan was to leave that very same day. The plan was not to go in there and start searching. It looked like all the other ammunition supply points we had seen already ... There was no sign of looting here ... Looting was going on in Baghdad, and we were rushing on to Baghdad."

In other words, our forces did not search the joint on 4/10. Period. End of story.

Also, the following assertion has been made: "there is no evidence HMX or RDX have been used against coalition forces in Iraq"

That's not so clear. CBS Evening News currently has a video report on their site. At the end of the report, the announcer says:

"So where did 350 tons of high explosives go? David Kay, who once headed the hunt for weapons of mass destruction, said after this bombing outside a mosque in Najaf [video is shown of a building in flames], investigators found traces of the same kind of explosives"

The report doesn't say, but I imagine it's referring to the incident on 8/20/03 when 75 were killed and 140 injured.

Maybe there's a subtle distinction between saying "used against coalition forces" and "used to create general mayhem against innocent people."

Jesus H. Christ, some of you moonbats have lost your friggin' minds.

Why am I supposed to give a rat's ass that some conventional HE is missing? Why is this even news?

Does anyone here realize that the first fusion bomb in the world used Composition B -- recoverable from any U.S. (or probably NATO, and perhaps even Iraqi) artillery shell -- as the initiator explosive, and worked just fine? There is nothing magic about RDX or HMX! (And of course as someone already pointed out, a fission bomb would be even easier to make, and require less conventional explosives.) Access to conventional explosives simply is not a stumbling block for anyone's nuclear program!

The stuff that's missing isn't special. It's a bit more powerful than the other HE available in droves. (We don't even know that this batch was all the RDX/HMX in the Iraqi inventory!) So what?

"Aieee, Yousaf, the infidels took the RDX. Whatever shall we do?"

"Fear not, Abdul! Use a bit more TNT, and give thanks to Allah that we have infinite quantities of it!"

We're not talking about nuclear friggin' weapons here! Somebody lost (or, more likely, hid) a needle in a haystack-sized pile of needles, and you moonbats respond by crapping down your pantlegs. Insane. Utterly insane.

This story is incredible because it demonstrates clearly that no one at NBCis fact checking nor is anyone from the Left even thinking.

I served In Baghdad for two years and am familiar with the roads in the country. The main roads are seldom mor than two lane highways, and they were not maintained. The main Baghdad-Kuwait highway was basically a dirt road interrupted by sections that were paved. The main Baghdad-Amman road was just a collection of ruts suitable for 4 wheel drive vehicles. The only road worth anything was the Baghdad-Turkey road which was maintained and paved.

Having said that has anyone ever moved? I did every two years. It took 6 men three days to load 25,000 pounds of goods for storage and shipment. Assuming that people could work twice as effectively has anyone considered how many men it would take to move 380 tonnes?

In addition, most trucks in Iraq are small because mechanics there are poorly trained and there were few foreign firms operating. Trucks were usually in the one ton to five ton capacity class for the simple reason larger trucks couldn't be towed for lack of wreckers and the capacity of bridges and roads.

Assuming they used five ton capacity trucks we're talking about about 80 trucks (given ineffecient loading). Does anyone believe that 80 odd trucks travelling on a highway or even (very doubtful) cross country wouldn't have been noticed? Even if they travelled in small groups of twos and threes how likely is it they would have escaped notice during war when the military was monitoring all roads and any vehicle movement would have been subjected to intense inspection given the interest in WMD and mobile missile luanchers.

Sorry this would have taken at least a week if three hundred men were involved. This doesn't pass the smell test.

The Left is desperate and will try anything. I expect one more shoot from the leftwingnuts before Tuesday. One last point, CBS wanted to air this story on Sunday, but was afraid it wouldn't take hold and therefore aired it early enough to grab the public's attention. The only question now is whether Kerry and his staff was coordinating with the media. My bet is that they were.

3. These explosives are said to be extra-dangerous because they can be used to trigger nuclear bombs.

The reason HMX is used in nuclear bombs is the fact that it is not extra dangerous. HMX is very very hard to get to explode, while having enough power when you manage it to reach a critical implosion.

Octol would do a better job for less weight. The reason we use Octol-based explosives as our main conventional bomb is the fact that it carries the most bang for the mass. But Octol is too volitile for a weapon that, if you accidentally drop it while loading, would take out your airport and several square miles of surrounding countryside.

BTW those IEDs are almost all made from Octol-based HE artillery shells.

What's most interesting about this is how all y'all know the chemical composition of all the IEDs in Iraq and the best explosive to use for a fusion as opposed to fission bomb... but you don't have any idea or even give a crap where 700,000 pounds of difficult to move high explosives went.

Now let's pretend that there actually were WMD's in Iraq (kind of like how you did last year). Now let's pretend that in the month before or after the invasion, ten semi-truck loads of them just cruised off to who knows where while the entire American surveillance apparatus was pointed at it. That woulda sucked...

Fortunately, all that happened was the distribution of years worth of car bomb materials getting scattered across a hostile countryside where thousands of Americans are getting maimed. What's the big deal?

Guess what? WMD, not there? Surprise Democrats. Now Kerry is saying the Administration let them get away. Do they now admit that WMD existed? Where is their stand? First there wasn't any WMD, but now where is there stand. Exist or not? As Kennedy said, he's a liar (Bush). What kind of spin are they going to come out with now? Kerry will say anything to get elected? Do you see the pattern. They really want the Presidency at any cost. Wake up America. The country will be in better hands with President Bush. I'm a Vietnam Vet 1966-1968. Received the purple heart for wounds received at Na Trang. Elect BUSH/CHENEY for a safer America.

Geek is a dumbass...that is all!

mr lawson - zota is not that bright either.

mr lawson, Random Numbers:

Like I said. Friggin' insane. But you know what? If they keep saying it loudly enough, some people may be stupid enough to fall for it.

Jukebox-you are still missing the obvious.

How do you move almost 400 tons of explosives, in an area that is crawling with US soldiers, and airplanes?

If just some of it was gone, I would buy the "looters" theory better, but for all the explosives to be gone, while far more immediately useful weapons were left behind just doesn't pass the smell test. And you have to argue that all this happened under the nose of the US army. Kerry is doing a good job of not only insulting the allies we do have, but now he is doing a great job of insulting our troops. And yes, it is insulting out troops-the failur to notice 40 some odd trucks driving off with explosives in not something that is a mistake at the administration level, but at the military command level. I do not buy Kerry's position that our troops are so incompetent that they wouldn't notice this. They were moving our troops up and down the roads, and had roadblocks all over the place.

Juke, the 101st was NOT the first US unit at QaQaa. The 3rd ID was, a week before. Testimony from the 3rd ID may be reviewed at Kerry Spot, and other blogs.

Reading through some of the above posts reinforces my belief about where the Hate-Bush Campaign has led some persons.

Today's Liberal Intellectuals (an oxymoron?) know two phrases which according to DNC logic are to repeated as a mantra:

He is a liar.
He is stupid.
He is a liar.
He is stupid.
He is a liar.
He is stupid.

And if one engages in debate using only these two phrases in alternate repetition - then one immunizes themselves against the dangers of having to employ one's brain to confront world issues on the basis of cold hard facts.

If Bush loses, then God help this country. We are going to need all the help we can get when the majority of the current military officers walk out on Kerry.

If this i strue, I wonmder what else the Russians helped move. WMD for 1000 Alex????

And now Drudge says this:

"Russia tied to Iraq´s missing arms; Pentagon: Weaponry relocated before war

GERTZ // THURSDAY // WASH TIMES: Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned. John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, “almost certainly” removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad."