Tons Of Iraq Explosives Missing

by teejay 149 Replies latest social current

  • ThiChi

    That is not the issue at hand. Please address the claim made by your buddy, teejay. You can dance around the issue all day long, but you cannot rebut the facts.

    Has it really come down to using false facts to get a point across?

  • teejay


    I could be wrong but you seem overly upset by nothing more than the quotes from websites that I made in the initial post. There really is no need for that, is there?

    I made no false claim. I did not say anywhere that Bush uttered the words "Mission Accomplished." Neither did I say that he or any member of his White House staff put the signage on the aircraft carrier. Despite your unwillingness to face the truth?you said, "Notwithstanding, your "Mission Accomplished" photo is misleading and just plain wrong" ?in what way is the photo misleading? Or wrong? And if it's misleading, who's responsible for the confusing message?

    Are you saying that Bush had no idea the sign was there? And had no idea or purpose in sending, as it turned out, a crass and overly premature victory message to not only the crew of the USS Lincoln but to the whole world? Are you saying that he had no idea how his "Mission Accomplished" might be misunderstood... that viewers of the photo might be misled? Do you really believe that he went through all of those motions of donning a flight suit, making two fly-bys, landing on an aircraft carrier, standing in front of that sign, all to simply say "job well done" to the crew of that one aircraft carrier? Do you really believe that?

    As president of the US and Commander in Chief of the armed forces (including the Navy), surely you know that Bush could/would have had it removed if he had found it out of order or inappropriate. As you can clearly see (in the photo plastered all over the world at the time), he did neither. The simple message "Mission Accomplished" evidently jibed nicely with his general message at the time. That he passed the buck and later blamed the sign on the Navy is simply characteristic of his arrogant unwillingness to admit to his mistakes, consistently blaming others for them. As CNN reported,

    White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that ... Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it.

    "We took care of the production of it," McClellan said. "We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up."

    In the scheme of things, does it really matter who "put it up"?

    You asked:

    why is old news (19 months old) " being recycled now? And it does not state when the explosives went missing. One source states that the explosives went missing before the US even showed up, which your story did not report...

    Agreed. Apparently no one knows precisely when the ammo/explosives went missing, but as the news report reads, it was made known to the Bush administration just a few days ago that the weapons in that particular ammo dump were missing.

    Exactly when the explosives went missing is somewhat of a moot point, wouldn't you say? The fact is: (at least) 380 tons of high-grade explosives is unaccounted for. Not a lot in comparison to what was believed to have been in Iraq at one time and apparently not enough for one senior White House official to be concerned, but still enough to do a lot of damage if it ended up in the wrong hands.

    More than anything... what I find absolutely fascinating is your seeming unwillingness, your abject REFUSAL, to admit to any error on Bush's part, regardless of how horrendous the report. Since tanks started to roll toward Baghdad last Spring, Bush has made costly (in terms of dollars and lives) blunder after blunder and you, like him, can't seem to own up to a single one.

  • ThiChi

    Back- peddling your post now? Lol. You claimed:

    ""Incorrect. It was well-known that the Bush Administration (generally) dropped the ball with respect to the proper handling of explosive dumps all over Iraq. What wasn't known until recently (according to the report) is that the some-380 tons at the Al Qaqaa complex, south of Baghdad was missing. The interim government just announced it. """

    You posted the information as a negative, attacking Bush and why Rumsfield?s doctrine must go, and your claim was based on false information.... . At least take responsibility for your "false dilemmas" you tried pass off as factual.

    Look, don?t change the subject or rationalize away your claims.. I am only amused at the dishonestly and twisting of the facts. Being an Ex-JW, I am especially so.

    The fact is, no one should endure falsehoods, even if they come from you.

    "...your abject REFUSAL, to admit to any error on Bush's part,"

    I have only been rebutting your misinformation you have posted. I have never made the claim Bush is error free. Never. Agian a falsehood. I can go down the list of problems I have with Bush:

    1. His domestic spending

    2. His war on Drugs

    3. Not opening up the prescription market to foreign sources, allowing the market to bring prices down

    4. Not condemning the UN more openly for the Oil for Food scandal.

    In fact, you only indite yourself as posting anything, weather it is true or not, just to try to get Bush....Shame on you!

    Getting back to the Issue at hand, it was NBC (no friend of Bush) that rebutted your half baked report:

    Here is more information that proves my claim:

    NBCNEWS reported: The 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives were already missing back in April 10, 2003 -- when U.S. troops arrived at the installation south of Baghdad!

    An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.

    According to NBCNEWS, the HMX and RDX explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.

    Dem vp hopeful John Edwards blasted Bush for not securing the explosives: "It is reckless and irresponsible to fail to protect and safeguard one of the largest weapons sites in the country. And by either ignoring these mistakes or being clueless about them, George Bush has failed. He has failed as our commander in chief; he has failed as president."

    ( "Let me get this straight, are Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards now saying we did not go into Iraq soon enough? We should have invaded and liberated Iraq sooner?" )

    Why is the U.N. nuclear agency suddenly warning now that insurgents in Iraq may have obtained nearly 400 tons of missing explosives -- in early 2003?NBCNEWS Jim Miklaszewski quoted one official: "Recent disagreements between the administration and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency makes this announcement appear highly political."

    If you are going to continue to post wrong information, or half truths, I will continue to respond. If you post something that is right, I will agree.

    Start a post about the war on Drugs, and I will be just as harsh with the facts why it has failed as I would about the misinformation you present here.....

  • SixofNine

    NBC said THEIR EMBEDDED REPORTER did not see any explosives on APRIL 10, 2003.

    But he wouldn't know if he did or didn't see any, as he was not trained in explosives and he was with the SECOND GROUP of troops that went to Al Qaqaa; there was another group of troops that arrived first, on April 4, 2003, and they did find the explosives.

  • ThiChi

    Six, you prove my point:

    ""But he wouldn't know if he did or didn't see any"" That was their NBC reporter. However, NBC also reported that the Military, through the State Department, reported the RDX and HMX was not there when they arrived.

    Agian, Why is this coming out now, with no dates or information from both sides?

    the explosives could have been hidden elsewhere before the war. They also stressed that there is no evidence HMX or RDX have been used against coalition forces in Iraq.

    I proved my claims: Old news, and the HMX or RDX could have been removed before the US invasion, Bush did not state MA" as was implied and the Banner was not placed there by Bush, or the White House Staff.

    NBCNEWS Jim Miklaszewski quoted one official: "Recent disagreements between the administration and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency makes this announcement appear highly political."

  • Midget-Sasquatch

    THI-CHI: I think you're right about the timing of the announcement being political.

    But whether the explosives went missing before or after the US invasion won't matter to the people who'll be blown up by them in the near future. What matters is how "targets" are selected by the groups that will use them, and how to stop them.

    The US definitely needs to improve in this respect.

    And in regards to the comment that these explosives were always available to be bought from other sources: Having such large amounts flood the blackmarket will surely make it more cheaper, so more easier, for groups to get their hands on them.

  • ThiChi

    You are just guessing about the black market. Notwithstanding, your guessing does not excuse what this post was intended to do. Discredit Bush.

    Deep within the New York Times story, is the most likely explanation for what happened to the weapons. "It was standard Iraqi practice to, prior to bombing, move explosives out into the open and camouflage it so that it would not be as readily perceived to be a target." In fact, they moved them out of where everybody knew the weapons were, and then they camouflaged them to protect them. "Standard Iraqi practice to, prior to bombing, move explosives out in the open, camouflage it. In all probability these stockpiles of weapons were long gone before any American soldier ever got near the place where they were originally held." [emphasis added]

  • minimus
    minimus*t happens.

  • SixofNine

    If you hadn't noticed, Thi Chi, it's "politics" that hopefully will get that treasonous idiot out of the white house. You act as if you've hit on something profound when you quote "Recent disagreements between the administration and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency makes this announcement appear highly political."

    I find that profoundly stupid, as the white house having disagreements (especially THIS white hous) with the IAEA is important news, just as is the missing explosives.

    The question for honest people then, is "why was protecting amunition, weapons, and explosives sites not PRIORITY NUMBER ONE to the administration?". The answer makes me question the wisdom of anyone who would vote for GW Bush. Politics indeed.

  • ThiChi


    nice try. Unfortunately, your goals will not be met with falsehoods and half truths. The American people know better.

    While your opinion is amusing, it is irrelevant. This posted story says it dates, old news, UN making the claim days before the what do you take us for?

    Even the News Media is now "back peddling" yesterdays?s false claims on this story. Give us a break. They know when to quit, do you?

Share this