NBC News: Huge Cache Of Explosives Vanished From Site In Iraq At Least 18 Months Ago

[Joe Sick]

Here is a transcript from the embedded reporter on the scene. Looks like the Bush apologists will have to think up a new excuse. My suggestion is to stay away from Drudge, he just makes you look foolish.

--------

Video link:

http://www.shadowtv.com/redirect/notification.jsp?vid=74fed94051cbec2f589187acc5e84db5

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. 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. 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 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.

[Joe Sick]

Originally posted by portisbowwow

The important part of this story is the timing of the story. Was this a new revelation that just happened to coincide with the election of the leader of the free world? And the "tip" just so happened to come from the agency that got kicked out of Iraq by Bush?

Trust me when I say the international community just made a MAJOR play to affect our election. Regardless where you fall on the political spectrum, this should bother you a great deal.

Now I see. Since this is looking more and more like bad planning for post-war Iraq, R's have to go back to the old "blame the UN" mantra.

It's getting quite old and we are on to your spin. When your justifications and excuses change hourly, it is hard to "trust you."

From the MSNBC article, which you obviously didn't read:

IAEA kept theft quiet

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, told the U.N. Security Council that the IAEA had kept the theft quiet since learning of it from Iraqi authorities Oct. 10 to give the U.S.-led multinational force and Iraq’s interim government “an opportunity to attempt to recover the explosives before this matter was put into the public domain.”

But since the disappearance was reported Monday by The New York Times, he said, he wanted the Security Council to have the letter that he received from Mohammed J. Abbas, a senior official at Iraq’s Ministry of Science and Technology, reporting the theft of the explosives.

The materials were lost through “the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security,” the letter said.

[portisizzle]

My oh my Jackson.:laugh:

Now you are on "damage control"

That is cool, it looks good on you.

[Joe Sick]

Originally posted by portisbowwow

Can you say "damage control"

i wonder where the UN stands on the election......

I guess we know now. Makes you feel comfortable that an international agency is trying to affect this election.

"Global test":mad:

Looks like IAEA just passed the test.......

Did you even read the quote?

Obviously not.

It says, in plain English, that this information was given BY THE IRAQI AUTHORITIES ON OCT.10.

Somehow it was leaked to the NY Times and the story ran two weeks later. Another whistleblower?

It is so easy to expose people's partisanship when you have the facts on your side!

[portisizzle]

Originally posted by Jackson's Ward

Did you even read the quote?

Obviously not.

It says, in plain English, that this information was given BY THE IRAQI AUTHORITIES ON OCT.10.

Somehow it was leaked to the NY Times and the story ran two weeks later. Another whistleblower?

It is so easy to expose people's partisanship when you have the facts on your side!

Hey don't I know you?? Let debate on one thread, this is getting tiresome!:laugh:

[Joe Sick]

Originally posted by portisbowwow

My oh my Jackson.:laugh:

Now you are on "damage control"

That is cool, it looks good on you.

You're obviously beyond help. Laughing off the facts on the ground is defining trait of the Bushies.

I'm sure you'll wake up tomorrow and freerepublic will have a new spin to this issue.

Tata and don't get dizzy!

[portisizzle]

Originally posted by Jackson's Ward

You're obviously beyond help. Laughing off the facts on the ground is defining trait of the Bushies.

I'm sure you'll wake up tomorrow and freerepublic will have a new spin to this issue.

Tata and don't get dizzy!

I love this site! I finally get to debate with people who love politics.

But let's get serious. We are one week away from election. If this was not for political purposes, why could the story not wait for two more weeks?

[Predicto]

Originally posted by portisbowwow

I love this site! I finally get to debate with people who love politics.

But let's get serious. We are one week away from election. If this was not for political purposes, why could the story not wait for two more weeks?

Umm.. because it is really big news?

[portisizzle]

Originally posted by Predicto

Umm.. because it is really big news?

Predicto, if it was REALLY BIG NEWS, it would have broke....ohhh.......about a YEAR AND A HALF AGO!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

Deleted the tasteless clown comment...

[Tarhog]

Originally posted by Jackson's Ward

Here is a transcript from the embedded reporter on the scene. Looks like the Bush apologists will have to think up a new excuse. My suggestion is to stay away from Drudge, he just makes you look foolish.

No, all of you non-military guys making sweeping generalizations and accusations look foolish. Do you have any idea how chaotic combat is? So Hussein's got huge stockpiles of explosives (ignoring the fact that up to the past two days, you all were painting him as nothing more than a harmless buffoon)? Do you think its realistic to expect that invading US forces know where all of this stuff is, and while getting shot at, should've stopped what they were doing and said, to hell with killing the enemy and getting the ground objectives accomplished as quickly as possible, lets scour the country for explosives?

Its just a total red herring. Hussein is the one that stockpiled all of this $hit in the first place. What really cracks me up is that, had Bush done the militarily SMART thing in Iraq, invade with crushing force with no warning, no allies, and no ****footing around in the UN, and thus been able to keep the Iraqis from moving all of this stuff, you all would be all over him for that as well. It was the very effort to appease his critics by delaying and going through the diplomatic motions that allowed Hussein to hide and disperse whatever it was that he had at the time. But yet, Bush is still to blame for the fact that he couldn't control what was at that point essentially an uncontrollable situation. We not only make US forces wait an interminable amount of time before going in, but we make them tell the world the time, place, and nature of our offensive operations. ...because we have to appear 'multinational'.

Bush's only mistake in this whole thing was caring at all what his critics said. It wasn't being overly aggressive, it was not being aggressive enough. Although ultimately it wouldn't matter, because the attack machine would be all over him, and it doesn't matter what he did or didn't do. Because when you're out to savage a man's character, anything goes.

[flashback]

Originally posted by portisbowwow

The important part of this story is the timing of the story. Was this a new revelation that just happened to coincide with the election of the leader of the free world? And the "tip" just so happened to come from the agency that got kicked out of Iraq by Bush?

Trust me when I say the international community just made a MAJOR play to affect our election. Regardless where you fall on the political spectrum, this should bother you a great deal.

Fascinating. So the timing of the story and the fact that it came from an international agency is more important than the fact that 140,000 American Soldiers and Marines in Iraq have 760,000 pounds of explosives to deal with that should have been secured or destroyed a year and a half ago.

Good to know where you stand, portis.

[portisizzle]

Originally posted by flashback

Fascinating. So the timing of the story and the fact that it came from an international agency is more important than the fact that 140,000 American Soldiers and Marines in Iraq have 760,000 pounds of explosives to deal with that should have been secured or destroyed a year and a half ago.

Good to know where you stand, portis.

At least I have something called PERSPECTIVE.

Question for you......if these explosives can bring an airplane down, are they considered WMD's?

While you are short-circuiting on that question.......let me pose another.

How does this revelation change that we HAVE been dealing with these explosives for over a year now?

[Art]

Is it not the case that no one knows when these weapons disappeared? Is it not, from the timeline we know of, likely, the weapons were removed while Saddam was in power -- in similar fashion to more sinister weapons and the money he stole, all of which could have been relocated in a far more simple fashion.

I haven't really read this thread, but, I assume the five pages covers the absolute outrageous nature of the liberal press for reporting a story that has seriously problems given the timeline and the video taken in April by both NBC and Reuters.

[portisizzle]

Originally posted by Art

Is it not the case that no one knows when these weapons disappeared? Is it not, from the timeline we know of, likely, the weapons were removed while Saddam was in power -- in similar fashion to more sinister weapons and the money he stole, all of which could have been relocated in a far more simple fashion.

I haven't really read this thread, but, I assume the five pages covers the absolute outrageous nature of the liberal press for reporting a story that has seriously problems given the timeline and the video taken in April by both NBC and Reuters.

1) They got bombed during our initial push in Iraq.

2) They were moved by Saddam out of the country.

or

3) Terrorist (who were months away from developing a resistance group) got by the U.S. 101 Airborne w/ a small contingent of 38 tadem trailers of these explosives. They are now hiding them within the country ready for immediate use....

No one knows for sure. But with a little common sense we can draw some basic conclusions. One of those is that the terrorist resistance has neither the capablility nor the desire for 38 truckloads of VERY specialized explosives.

This topic exists, not for the nature of the content, but the shock factor on an unsuspecting American electorate. What makes it doubly worse is that the media is complicit in this sad state of affairs.

[flashback]

Weapons of Mass Destruction is basically a euphemism for unconventional weapons (chemical, biological, nuclear). Since these munitions are by definition "conventional", they don't fit the definition of WMDs. However, death is death, and 380 tons can do a lot of destruction.

Its true this doesn't change what our troops are dealing with, but it does educate us a little more on what they're up against.

There's an argument that its not only Americans who have a stake in the election. The international community is not permitted to vote, but I believe they have the right to express their opinion, even if they're not protected by our constitution. But saying that the IAEA engineered this "non-story" (according to some in here) to sway the election seems like a stretch. Is the Pentagon trying to sway the election by talking about sending more troops to Iraq? Who leaked the story about the additional $70 Billion in emergency funds? Are they Kerry-backers, too?

[Commander PK]

Originally posted by flashback

There's an argument that its not only Americans who have a stake in the election. The international community is not permitted to vote, but I believe they have the right to express their opinion, even if they're not protected by our constitution.

Yep, your right. They do have the right to express their opinion, but you know what they say about opinions. They are like (expletives)...everybody's got one.

If the American people are swayed by who the International Community thinks our leader should be, than I have lost all hope in the American people. That's like Americans telling Britain, they should vote for Blair, or Germany they should vote for Schroeder. Who are we to even offer an opinion on who we think should lead another country? Many on the left never cease to amaze me, because they want us to stay out of other country's affairs...but they think it's o.k. when foreigners tell us who our President should be.

[portisizzle]

Originally posted by flashback

Weapons of Mass Destruction is basically a euphemism for unconventional weapons (chemical, biological, nuclear). Since these munitions are by definition "conventional", they don't fit the definition of WMDs. However, death is death, and 380 tons can do a lot of destruction.

Its true this doesn't change what our troops are dealing with, but it does educate us a little more on what they're up against.

There's an argument that its not only Americans who have a stake in the election. The international community is not permitted to vote, but I believe they have the right to express their opinion, even if they're not protected by our constitution. But saying that the IAEA engineered this "non-story" (according to some in here) to sway the election seems like a stretch. Is the Pentagon trying to sway the election by talking about sending more troops to Iraq? Who leaked the story about the additional $70 Billion in emergency funds? Are they Kerry-backers, too?

1) Define WMD's however you like. It does not matter. These explosives were not stolen like a loaf of bread in the middle of the night. The better question might be, why would Saddam want to move these weapons out of UN control.

2) Most people understand the reality of this war and its importance to our future generations. To just now have a revelation as to how dangerous Iraq was w/ Saddam demonstrates a bit of misunderstanding as to why we went to war. If is tough now, just imagine how tough it would have been 5-10 years from now when he was much more capable of waging war.

3) The UN has NO SAY about who is elected the President of our country. Your comment demonstrates a very dire proposition. That is that you think we are somehow responsible to the UN and the international community, and their opinions. Sad, sad. And if I have to explain to you why that is sad, then you my friend are a lost cause. Let's just hope you do not really believe what you just wrote.

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by flashback

Fascinating. So the timing of the story and the fact that it came from an international agency is more important than the fact that 140,000 American Soldiers and Marines in Iraq have 760,000 pounds of explosives to deal with that should have been secured or destroyed a year and a half ago.

Good to know where you stand, portis.

Uh, didn't these explosives disappear over a year ago?

Sorry, your faux-concern for our troops is nauseating.

This story, or at least it's timing, IS a political ploy and you know it.

But please do continue enlightening the rest of us on how this is relevant and front-page news in Oct 2004.

[Commander PK]

Originally posted by portisbowwow

The UN has NO SAY about who is elected the President of our country. Your comment demonstrates a very dire proposition. That is that you think we are somehow responsible to the UN and the international community, and their opinions. Sad, sad. And if I have to explain to you why that is sad, then you my friend are a lost cause. Let's just hope you do not really believe what you just wrote.

Couldn't have put my thoughts into words any better. :notworthy

[visionary]

Why are we still arguing over this, we all know that everything that goes wrong in the world is Bush's fault... that effin' Bush!

This never would have happened if Bush had just blown up every building in Iraq before we went in...

:laugh:

[du7st]

Some answers to the criticisms thrown at "the guy who started the feel safer thread" (that's me)...

1. I haven't responded to this point because... well... I can't sit on extremeskins all day long.

2. There is no reason for me to apologize for posting the original article. I am not a news agency nor an investigative reporter. I have to rely on others to fact check for me 99% of the time because I don't have all day to go around checking sources and the validity of supposed news articles. I try to give my sources of information at least a little bit of credit but that is becoming a bad idea these days.

3. It seems that all we have right now is contradicting reports so there isn't much more to talk about. At this point I'm going to try and avoid all news until election night because the level of bias at all news organizations is really beyond overlooking. This includes the american press, international press, conservatives, and democrats.

[flashback]

Originally posted by portisbowwow

3) The UN has NO SAY about who is elected the President of our country. Your comment demonstrates a very dire proposition. That is that you think we are somehow responsible to the UN and the international community, and their opinions. Sad, sad. And if I have to explain to you why that is sad, then you my friend are a lost cause. Let's just hope you do not really believe what you just wrote.

Of course the UN (at least, the non-American members of the UN) has no say in who is the President of the United States. I didn't say they had a say in the election, I said that had a stake in the outcome. The whole world does. We're the most powerful military and the largest economy in the world. Of couse, if Bush is re-elected, we might not be for long.

And I believe that the United States does have a role, or a responsibility, in the world. I think Bush agrees with me. He's always talking about advancing liberty around the world, etc. And if we truly want to defeat terrorism, I think a dialogue with the rest of the world is necessary, and one half of a dialogue is listening.

I believe what I wrote, but I didn't write what you said I wrote.

[Thiebear]

This is NO different than the Kerry Hanoi document!

One is done by a Political group that wants Bush in Office.

One is done by the UN that wants Kerry in office.

I'll not listen to either...

[Larry]

Thiebear,

Re: Your source's logistical calculations:

If they park the truck closer to the ammo, then they can do a load every one minute, (per man), which means five times the loading rate (or one-fifth the people).

Don't know about you, but I don't have too much problem with 50-pound loads, and I'm a 45-year-old, out-of-shape civilian. (OTOH, I doubt I can keep it up for 12 hours. Might work out even).

OTOH, the numbers he's using may well be based on something completely irrelevent, like real-world experience, or something.

[Larry]

Originally posted by Jackson's Ward

Now I see. Since this is looking more and more like bad planning for post-war Iraq, R's have to go back to the old "blame the UN" mantra.

Actually, I think it's more of a "This is comming at a bad time, so therefore it must be a plot."

(Edit: OTOH, if there's an announcement, tomorrow, that Ossama's been captured, how many people are gonna yell "Bush plot!"? OTOOH, if that announcement occurrs, how many people who're now denouncing this blatant attempt to undermine democracy will have no problem with the thought of managing a war with the same motive?)

Although, it still doesn't affect my opinion much, no matter which story becomes true.

It was a war. A very fast-moving one (and therefore, chaotic). Do-Do occurs.

If these explosives were recovered tomorrow, does anybody think the war would be over? Nobody over there seems to be running out of ammo any time soon.

Sometimes I get the impression that Saddam had more weapons stockpiled then we do.