I am not willing to concede that we lost 380 tons of weapons (or failed to protect, or whatever), because I have seen no evidence to indicate ther even were in the depot when our soldiers got there. In fact, the BULK of the evidence leads a normal person to believe they had been moved after the IAEA inspection but before pour troops reached the site. Let’s add in some other facts:
– the two sources of the story, 60 Minutes and the NY Times (led by Jill Abramson), are not what I would call creedible sources when the issue is George Bush.
– the op-ed’s in today’s NY Times and the continued faux journalism (“Iraq Explosives Become Issue in Campaign“) demonstrate that not only do they have an interest in keeping this false story alive to defeat Bush, but that they have a monetary interest at stake.
– the information was ‘leaked’ to the NY Times by Al Abaradei, who Bush is opposing for a third term at the IAEA, in a rather clear act of politicking.
– the information was not even leaked- our own Iraqi Survey group reported there were no weaponks there a month after our troops initially inspected the site and found no weapons.
– the timing. This is nothing more than an attempted October surprise.
– the misinformation. The explosives in question would have been in bulk powder form, and not necessarily weaponized.
– even if our troops missed the explosives initially, the insurgency did not start for another 6-8 months after the Iraq Survey Group deemed there were no weapons present.
– There simply was no military action by the Iraqi military in the month period in between our troops hitting the depot and the Iraq Survey group. Remember, the Iraqi army ‘melted away.’
– Even if the explosives were there, you don’t just loot 380 tons of explosives through mob looting. This would have taken at least 40 special trucks and cranes. This couldn’t have been a group of Ba’athist sympatizers carrying televisions and a box of explosives under their arms, but rather a large scale operation.
It simply didn’t happen. Period.
But even if you belong to the Democratic kool-aid crowd, and you desperately want to believe this, I think a little perspective is necessary. Even if we did lose 380 tons of explosives (which we didn’t), that pales in comparison to the 400,000 tons we have confiscated and destroyed. For Democrats, maybe a visual aid or two will help. This is a picture of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69):
According to the Navy fact file about the Eisenhower, it is 1092 feet long and 252 feet wide. Fully loaded, as pictured, it weighs 97,000 (ninety-seven thousand) tons.
This is a picture of the an LCAC.
According to the Navy fact file, the LCAC is 87 feet 11 inches long, 47 feet wide, and fully loaded can weigh 170-182 tons. The LCAC is out 1 1/2 times the size of the small boat in the foreground of the carrier pictured above, so you have some perspective.
To date, we have confiscated/destroyed this many tons of weapons:
The Democrats are claiming (falsely, I believe) we have lost this many tons of explosives:
STFU, donks.
You know, even if Kerry wins, if I dedicate the same amount of willful ignorance and venom to ruining Kerry’s Presidency as the Democrats have done to Bush since day one, they are going to wish they had never won.
*** Update ***
To those of you in the comments claiming my bullets are dounterfactual, chew on this. And quit making shit up. You know- it is no surprise that the same people who were defending the Rather memos up until the moment even RATHER admitted they were frauds that think of course the Army and Bush screwed up here.
Another thing- while they think they are attacking Bush, you know who they are really shitting all over with these partisan attacks? Yep.
Slartibartfast
Heh. Hehe.
Dean Esmay
At this point I’ve given up hoping for sanity or common sense from these folks. Their only objective is to win, period.
James
yep, they’ll be sorry…
The Lonewacko Blog
What percentage of Iraq’s total arsenal has been accounted for, and what percentage has been picked up by terrorists or terror-sponsoring countries?
Also, some of the points above seem to be contradicted by those in a definite position to know.
See Al-Qaqaa spokesman says no weapons search and this.
Bloggerhead
Yeah, you’re putting this puppy to bed way too early, John. Your bullet points are mostly counter-factual message control and counter-intuitive speculation. Cool visuals, though. Any number of things could have happened to these highest of explosives between March & May, 2003, from Saddam moving them prior to the war to looters picking them up during & soon thereafter. There was a hell of a lot of the latter going on, you have to admit.
The only thing that can be now said for certain about all this is that powerful explosives that were secured prior to war are now gone. To my mind, being the unapologetic, power-mad Kerry-voter that I am, this is enough to make this story worthy of voter scrutiny, for it strikes at the rationale and the execution of the Iraq War and its contribution to our safety. That the administration first lied about when they knew about this, then downplayed the significance of these munitions, before finally deciding to look at the facts of how they got missing, has just been an added bonus, for shits and giggles.
Oh, and about the timing, if the CPA hadn’t put upon the Iraqis to keep this quiet with IAEA, this could have come out months ago. I promise, though, when Dubya pulls Osama from the bulge in his suitcoat on Thursday, I’ll scream like bloody murder with you. It’ll be fun.
somedude
Um, Kernel Blitz 97 was the code name of an exercise in 1997. The LCAC shown may have a name other than its number LCAC-17, but I doubt it.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/kernel-blitz.htm
http://www.combatindex.com/hardware/detail/sea/lcac17_detail.html
Ricky
Yes, bloggerhead, looters can carry off 720,000 pounds in no time.
[groan]
Slartibartfast
Lonewacko, the person who said that was an MSNBC embed, not an “Al Qa Qaa spokesman”.
pleasewakeupy'all
“You know, even if Kerry wins, if I dedicate the same amount of willful ignorance and venom to ruining Kerry’s Presidency as the Democrats have done to Bush since day one, they are going to wish they had never won.”
Wow. You make it sound one-sided. Which side do you think has brought offense-minded politics to the fore? Do you honestly believe that Limbaugh and his surrogates sprang solely from free-enterprise? Do you honestly believe that the liberal media myth is purely a grass-roots phenomenon? Do you view the Starr report as productive prosecution or political persecution? Of course those are rhetorical questions, I’ve seen the playbook responses. Please don’t pretend that your avowed offensive posture WHEN Kerry wins is merely a response to attacks from the left when it’s quite clear it’s a continuation of the existing Republican strategy.
But before you willfully engage in this spiralling political incivility, consider at least for a moment the role it plays in furthering the polarization and degradation of our political process.
John Cole
John Kerry, yesterday, in front of who knows how many people, claimed that our troops abeing killed with explosives Bush fialed to guard. Without one shred of evidence, Kerry is hanging thee deaths around Bush’s neck.
And you come here lecturing me about political incivility?
Brass… Fucking… Balls…
Dean
John Cole:
A serious question, has Rather actually *admitted* that those memoes were frauds?
I thought the gist of his “confession” was “We couldn’t be sure the chain of custody”? In fact, I don’t recall Rather or CBS *ever* admitting that they were frauds.
(And didn’t Mapes at one point even try to enlist some Texas shmuck who was trying to claim that you could type the thing w/ a typewriter *font* on the computer, and therefore it could be done on a typewriter?)
Don’t get me wrong, I believe they WERE frauds and forgeries—I just don’t believe that CBS has ever admitted it.
John Cole
Dean- You know, I don;t really recall hearing the words from Rather’s mouth, but I thought the empaneling of a blue ribbon commission was a sort of tacit admission from CBS that the documents were frauds.
Bloggerhead
Ricky,
I wonder what all those looted priceless aritifacts from the founding of our civilization weighed, most, presumably, made of stone? And all that looted equipment and infrastructure, even from the oil industry, to which we turned a blind eye, because despite plenty of warnings the president chose to send in an inadequate force?
I’m not saying that it would have been easy to move the explosives, but their weight is not, alone, dispositive of what happened to them. Our guys did control most of the roads. But we just weren’t concerned with looting at the time, and might I add, not the undermanned military’s fault, the underbrained president’s. Any thing that could be moved was subject to looting because we weren’t stopping traffic looking for contraband.
Anyway, the real point is that the administration’s war plan had no contingency for this, other than to say the freedom is messy, and therefore the administration should take, at least, some responsibility.
(snicker…obviously, not holding breath)
The Lonewacko Blog
this from 10/06/04: “The insurgents probably are using weapons and ammunition looted from the nearby Qa-Qaa complex, a 3-mile by 3-mile weapons-storage facility about 25 miles southwest of Baghdad, said Maj. Brian Neil, operations officer for the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, which initially patrolled the area. The facility was bombed during last year
Dean
John:
Since CBS, in order to not alter the election outcome, is withholding any assessment FROM that panel ’til after the Election, I’d venture that perhaps it might depend on who wins? (Sorry, call me cynical.)
Bloggerhead:
Ah, yes, the looting of the Museum. Innit interesting how much of that stuff *wasn’t* looted at all but “taken home for safekeeping” by the museum staff? In fact, innit interesting, iirc, that the removals occurred BEFORE the outbreak of the war?
But even if it were the case that looting occurred, I’m curious, should troops have been assigned to the museums? Or to the dozens of ammo dumps (Lonewacko provides some indication of the expanse of just ONE of these)? Or to things like dams and power plants? Or to oil fields to prevent enviro disasters? Or to the borders?
Bruce
Um, I think these weapons never existed. You know, just like the fabled WMDs that never existed either except in Blix’s reports. The fact that these explosives are not there is evidence that they never existed. Or it exposes the lefts dishonesty; If these missing weapons are considered ‘lost’ then the WMDs should also be considered ‘lost’. And we know that hundreds of semi trucks left Iraq for Syria in the two weeks before the coalition attacked… What was in those trucks? I thought lefties did not want to know about that?
pleasewakeupy'all
John,
Granted, that is hyperbolic, over-heated political rhetoric, but is it any worse than what comes from the other side? A litany of who said what and who did what first leads into an unresolvable pissing match, so let’s not go there.
It is regretful that the Democrats had to adopt a fight-fire-with-fire strategy, but what choice did they have? Just leave all the lies, attacks, and distortions unchallenged? I truly wish this election were nothing more than a referendum on the current administration’s duplicity, secrecy, and incompetence–but since that won’t sell to today’s polarized electorate, again I ask, what choice is there?
This all begs the question, “Who poisoned the well?”
Certainly the coarseness of civil discourse we’re faced with didn’t begin and doesn’t end in the political arena–there are some rather messed up societal trends when it comes to respect and tolerance, particularly of authority and government. But not until the Rovian doctrine and its “success” has the political well been as poisoned as it is now. When will the Rovian doctrine become passe? When it doesn’t work. Here’s hoping that’s next Tuesday.
Bruce
Pleasewakeup;
Uh, I thought the well was poisoned by the democrats when they attacked Reagen with no evidence.
Tell me again what Rove had to do with the contras?
Dean Esmay
Uhm, pubic hair, coke can? Senile, racist President planning to start nuclear war with the Soviets?
pleasewakeupy'all
Bruce,
Glad you brought it up. I think this illustrates beautifully where we were then and where we are now with respect to bipartisan accountability and with what the role of the press SHOULD be. Certainly the attitude of the Reagan administration in this matter was that they were above the law. The fact that we still had a somewhat functioning press corps brought it all to light. Wouldn’t happen today–at least not without the sheep bleats of “liberal press” and subsequent dismissal. And the bipartisan accountability? Well, unfortunately bipartisanship in any productive sense is all but dead for the near future.
Now, your contention that the Democrats attacked Reagan with “no evidence”, please read the following to refresh your memory on how the whole saga ended–and please spare me any of the revisionist crap that I’m sure some are contemplating. The only way you can justify the Iran/Contra actions was with an ends-justify-the-means argument. It most certainly wasn’t an “attack” as you’d like to characterize it but the way governmental accountability is supposed to work.
“A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.”
–Reagan in a television address is forced to acknowledge “the facts and the evidence” uncovered the Tower Commission, March 4, 1987
Four years after Reagan left office, more of the truth would come out. In 1992, former defense secretary Casper Weinberger was ordered to turn over notes of a January 1986 White House meeting. Weinberger’s notes said, “President decided to go with Israeli-Iranian offer to release our 5 hostages in return for sale of 4,000 TOWs [U.S. missiles] to Iran by Israel. George Shultz + I opposed–Bill Casey, Ed Meese + VP favored–as did Poindexter.”
Before leaving office in 1992, then-president George Bush pardoned Weinberger and five others who were facing felony charges stemming from Iran-contra. The Bush pardons effectively ended the Iran-contra investigation.
Ask yourself if you’re pleased with the state of political discourse today. Now dig deep and ask if Republican (Rove) election strategies don’t play a significant role in the current trend. Please try, although I suspect that it’s a lot to ask of someone with the delusional ability to think that Reagan was an innocent in the whole Iran/Contra mess.
Ricky
Nice attempt, bloggerhead, but I’d love to see you compile some legitimate way for looters to waltz off with 720,000 pounds of explosives.
Please put your best formulation forward.
Bruce
pleasew…
My only point is that Rove had nothing to do with it.
I am glad you agree but find it disingenious that you have changed your goal posts and now say ‘republican (Rove)’ instead of ‘Rove’
Since when have poliotics not been partisan? But hateful is unforgivable. Of course now we have to define ‘hateful’ but I do not see republican operatives sent out by their districts to go into democrat HQs and break arms and equipment the way democrat union goons have.
Of course there are idiots on the Republican side but so far there have not been any strong arm tactics.
Oh! By the way; I am independent. I have been for years. You shoudl be please because if I (and those like me) did not vote for Perot twice then Clinton never would have been in the Whitehouse and no one could have impeached him for lying in a federal court.
Bruce
Ok, now about the missing weapons? The topic of the thread?
If these explosives are ‘lost’ then the WMDs are ‘lost.
If the WMDs never existed, then neither did these ‘missing’ explosives.
Which is it? Hmmmm?
Both these explosives were in Blix and El Baradi reports. Both were not there when we took Iraq. How can one never have existed while the other is ‘lost’ by Bush? Neither were in the country that we have found since we got there.
Of course lefties have no trouble with complete cognative dissonence… But reasonable people will see that the explosives and the WMDs are the same. El Baradi recommended destroying the explosives because they could be used to trigger Nuclear bombs. The UN said to let Saddam keep them anyway so El Baradi tagged them and left. He thought they were WMD.
So which is it? Hmmmm? Or are you gonna ignore this post too?
CadillaqJaq
There is a God! Bruce has nailed it and did it quite simply. You can’t argue about the lack of WMD and still make a viable case for the “looting” of 380 tons of explosives. The stream doesn’t flow both ways at once.
About the looting: there was a time period following the IAEA’s last inspection before leaving Iraq when they locked up and tagged the site before the beginning of the conflict in March and the arrival of the first U.S. troops in early April. I suppose it’s folly to suggest that Saddam or his supporters wouldn’t have thought to “loot” their own supply dump during that period of time.
Secondly, how could potentially 38 trucks each capable of hauling ten tons of explosives have NOT been noticed running up and down those Iraqi roads surrounding the site following the arrival of U.s. troops?
Paul Bremer, interviewed today on FOX-TV by Brit Hume, totally discounted that possibility stating that the only real traffic on those roads then was U.S. and coalition military.
Today John Kerry runs his mouth and claims to know what happened, laying the blame on GWB. Let Kerry speak out now and share with us us how the stuff was “looted.’ Either that or he can STFU.
joe
I think it’s fair to assume that our satellites were closely monitoring the al Qaa Qa site during March-April 2003 — after all, it was one of the suspected sites where Saddam was hiding WMD. How do you think that Saddam was able to get 38 trucks to move the 377 tons, during that one critical month, without detection?
SDN
Joe,
Satellites don’t have Xray vision. All they can tell me is that trucks moved in and out of a major Iraqi ammo dump with loads under tarps. Now, if the “seals” affixed by the IAEA had been set up to broadcast a continuous signal, the interruption of which would have launched a nuclear tipped cruise missle, then I might be willing to concede their effectiveness. Otherwise, what a waste.
pleasewakeupy'all
Bruce,
Please pay attention. Reagan wasn’t “attacked” he was merely being held accountable in a way that sadly won’t happen today. Of course Rove had nothing to do with that. Rove has lots to do with today’s polarization, and willing foot soldiers like yourself make it easy for him to continue. Hopefully the RNC will adopt more civil tactics after Tuesday’s resounding defeat, and hopefully the Democrats will tone it down as well. There’s hope.
If you’re truly an independent, which I strongly doubt, please keep your mind open and quit mindlessly parroting this ridiculous party propoganda about WMDs and missing explosives. Face the fact that you and I really don’t know shit about what happened and it’s all about politics right now. In time, the truth–the real truth, not what you want it to be–will come out.
wild bird
Cant you remember that reagan was attacked by practily every darn liberal lowlife snakes around i mean even down to his jellybeans and nothings changed with these reptiles they are still a bunch of no good lowlifes i mena reagan was one of our most popular president ever yet he was trashed by all the hollywood socialists and those foul mouthed stand-up comedians its small wonder why the 80s was a poor year hor hollywood
Ricky
**Reagan wasn’t “attacked” he was merely being held accountable in a way that sadly won’t happen today.***
Yeah, right, being called the person who caused the spread of AIDS, the person responsible for homelessness and (until he was proven right & the cold war was won) the probable cause to the impending apocalypse is being held accountable.
****ace the fact that you and I really don’t know shit about what happened and it’s all about politics right now. ****
We’re in agreement. Why, then, is John Kerry pronouncing it as fact and placing the blame on Bush? You accept such as “politics”? Is there now level low enough?
There are lies and damn lies.
That’s a fucking lie.
pleasewakeupy'all
“Yeah, right, being called the person who caused the spread of AIDS, the person responsible for homelessness and (until he was proven right & the cold war was won) the probable cause to the impending apocalypse is being held accountable”
Your protestations are hyperbolic and representative of a minute part of left-leaning people–and off topic. The accountability I was speaking of was solely for his Iran-Contra involvement.
Work yourself into a self-righteous frenzy if you must, but there’s a discernible difference between how the left and right view the politics of personal destruction. The majority of the left disdain it and the majority of the right embraces it. Granted, an oversimplification, but consider conservative talk radio for a moment. Full-scale, head-on attack radio, with only one viewpoint, and WILDLY successful. Why? Only because there’s an audience. Nothing on the left comes close. Air America is an abject failure, why? Because there’s no audience. You may make the argument that it’s because one’s right and one’s wrong, but that would only prove my point–that you’re completely intolerant of differing viewpoints and that you’re OK with the politics of personal destruction. Consider Whitewater. It boggles my mind that anyone condones the course and scope of that witch hunt, regardless of what it ultimately uncovered–yes, including the perjury. But just the idea that the Special Prosecutor act could be twisted to that end with the blessing of the MAJORITY of the right speaks volumes.
“Why, then, is John Kerry pronouncing it as fact and placing the blame on Bush? ”
Shameful, political opportunism. Sadly, it may be effective. But once again, who poisoned the well? Yes both sides share some responsibility, but it’s the right that hooked the sewer line into it.
Bruce
I knew you couldn’t answer me. You guys just ran off. This thread is not about Ronald Ray-gun. This thread is about WMDs that never existed; or did they?
When faced with cognative dissonence the left simply flees hoping to find more gullable folks elsewhere.
pleasewakeupy'all
Bruce,
“If you’re truly an independent, which I strongly doubt, please keep your mind open and quit mindlessly parroting this ridiculous party propoganda about WMDs and missing explosives. Face the fact that you and I really don’t know shit about what happened and it’s all about politics right now. In time, the truth–the real truth, not what you want it to be–will come out.”
A reprint from my comments above–it’s all I really have to say about, admittedly the main thrust of the post. What piqued my interest was the notion that no matter what, a Kerry presidency would be assailed from day one–period. Emblematic of today’s poisoned political condition, and un-American I might argue.
I assure you that I’m not experiencing cognitive dissonance, I’m just gonna skip this movie and wait for the truth to come out on DVD. Now please excuse me while I flee to find more gullible parties elsewhere.
Ricky
***but there’s a discernible difference between how the left and right view the politics of personal destruction. The majority of the left disdain it and the majority of the right embraces it****
That’s what Clarence Thomas, Paula Jones and Linda Tripp said just the other day when they were discussing Larry Flynt’s $1 million offer for any dirt on impeachment managers (quick, find a link to a prominent Democrat denouncing it…..I dare you).
But, I digress…….I was probably thinking about the starving children ads from ’96. Sorry, but that was a ridiculous thing to say.
It depends on whose ox is being goured, but you’re in some serious denial.
dantes
Great piece. No trackback, but a link here: http://isleofmontecristo.blogspot.com/2004/10/always-recruiting.html
pleasewakeupy'all
Bruce,
I guess the truth DVD will be out sooner than expected.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/28/iraq.explosives/index.html
How’s that cognitive dissonance thing going for you?