DBAHO Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 RUSSIAN special forces "almost certainly" removed the explosives missing from a military base south of Baghdad before the March 2003 US invasion and sent them to Syria, Lebanon and possibly Iran, The Washington Times daily said, quoting a US official. "The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units ... Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis," deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security John Shaw told the daily in an interview. The official said he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa military facility south of Baghdad. The missing 380 tons of explosives over which the International Atomic Energy Agency raised the alert earlier this month have become fodder in the US presidential election campaign, with Democratic challenger John Kerry accusing incumbent Republican President George W. Bush of incompetence in his handling of post-invasion Iraq. It is not clear whether the explosives -- which are used in plastic explosives and could also be used in a trigger for a nuclear device -- were removed from the site before or after the US-led invasion that toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. The Washington Times' source is the first to give a clear indication of when the explosives were removed. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration. He said Iraq's most powerful weapons were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran. The Al-Qaqaa facility, he added, was closely guarded, making it unlikely the explosives could have been stolen. "That was such a pivotal location, Number 1, that the mere fact of (special explosives) disappearing was impossible," he said. "And Number 2, if the stuff disappeared, it had to have gone before we got there." Separately, The New York Times -- which broke the story of the missing explosives on Monday -- said that looters stormed Al-Qaqaa after the US-led invasion. Citing three witnesses, the daily said some of the looters came in trucks to haul off munitions, dismantled heavy machinery and office furniture. The New York Times said that while the accounts did not address the question of when the 380 tons of explosives went missing, they "make clear that what set off much if not all of the looting was the arrival and swift departure of American troops, who did not secure the site after inducing the Iraqi forces to abandon it." US Army Colonel David Perkins, who commanded the brigade that first entered the Al-Qaqaa site in March 2003 said Wednesday his men only conducted a cursory search of the facility because their priority was to continue the march on Baghdad. "The main focus was not go back and do a very precise inventory of how many shells and things like that because it was just not the threat at the time," he told reporters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Interesting, very interesting. If this is indeed what happened, then I am going to say one thing...f*** YOU John Kerry. Your bashing president Bush, but really the message your sending when you point the blame on our troops losing those weapons is your putting blame on American Soldiers. I find it funny how his top advisor even says we don't know the facts yet he's going out campaigning the hell out of this issue. We'll see though, cause I'm still a sceptic in whatever happened. I still find it funny almost no one is mentioning that this so called armorment was just 1/10 of 1% of the weapons we have destroyed over in Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Maybe Nostradomus was right In all seriousness, this could get interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Interesting, very interesting. If this is indeed what happened, then I am going to say one thing...f*** YOU John Kerry. Your bashing president Bush, but really the message your sending when you point the blame on our troops losing those weapons is your putting blame on American Soldiers. I find it funny how his top advisor even says we don't know the facts yet he's going out campaigning the hell out of this issue. We'll see though, cause I'm still a sceptic in whatever happened. I still find it funny almost no one is mentioning that this so called armorment was just 1/10 of 1% of the weapons we have destroyed over in Iraq. Why should John Kerry or his leftist surrogates be worried about whether something is true or not. If he can potentially use it to carp on Bush he'll do it, factual evidence to the contrary be damned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted October 28, 2004 Author Share Posted October 28, 2004 I wonder what impact this will possibly have on the relationship between Bush if he is re-elected and Putin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Ah the Washington Times -- when I trust a source, I make sure it is a highly right wing biased source run by a guy who thinks he is the next coming of Jesus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Why should John Kerry or his leftist surrogates be worried about whether something is true or not. If he can potentially use it to carp on Bush he'll do it, factual evidence to the contrary be damned. And the same with the Not So Swift Boat Vets right Nuke....? You wouldn't be trying to have a partisan hatchet job against Kerry now would you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 This is what, the administration's eighth different story on this? If we knew the Russians moved this into Syria in March 2003, why didn't we stop it? The only way out of AlCaCa was on the main highway to Baghdad. This route was under constant surveillance before the invasion. You can sit there and browbeat Kerry all you want for attacking the president because it appeared he, and his civilian war planners, were too incompetent to prevent looting from major weapons sites, or didn't account that Saddam Hussein would move weaponry out of the country before our invasion. If he did that, and we knew he did that, what was the point of invading? Didn't we go into Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein? If that moved the weaponry elsewhere, why didn't we chase the weaponry? The point of this war was to make the world safer. If these high explosives and other powerful weapons left Iraq for Syria, we didn't make the world safer. We made it more dangerous. If we left ammo dumps to be looted by God knows whom, we didn't make the world safer. We made it more dangerous. George Bush justified this war by making sure this kind of weaponry would get out of the hands of those who would use it against us, namely Baathists and terrorists. Mission accomplished? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 (edited) Well, heres a "slightly" different take on things, from CNN ('friggin' liberal kooks) http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp.../0436129648.htm The entire piece is also copied below because it may disappear if it's actually true, as things like this tend to. I have no Idea what the truth is, but tell me how much faith you have in our pre-way satellite surveylance if we didn't catch Russia moving > 750,000 pounds of high explosives out of the country? Wasn't that exactly the kind of mass oppperation we were supposed to be looking for when we thought Saddam might have WMDs and try to move them out? If the Russian version turns out to be true, does it make you feel ANY better about the complete incompetence with which this has been executed?? And Jas, if something close to the CNN-reported version turns out to be the case, then who will you be sending that big f*** YOU to? Armed Group Claims to Have Iraq Explosives BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - An armed group claimed in a video Thursday to have obtained a large amount of explosives missing from a munitions depot facility in Iraq and threatened to use them against foreign troops. A group calling itself Al-Islam's Army Brigades, Al-Karar Brigade, said it had coordinated with officers and soldiers of ``the American intelligence'' to obtain a ``huge amount of the explosives that were in the al-Qaqaa facility.'' The claim couldn't be independently verified. The speaker was surrounded by masked, armed men standing in front of a black banner with the group's name on it in the tape obtained by Associated Press Television News. ``We promise God and the Iraqi people that we will use it against the occupation forces and those who cooperate with them in the event of these forces threatening any Iraqi city,'' the man added. Nearly 400 tons of conventional explosives have disappeared from the al-Qaqaa facility south of Baghdad, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The U.N. agency's chief Mohamed ElBaradei,reported the disappearance to the U.N. Security Council on Monday, two weeks after Iraqi officials told the nuclear agency that 377 tons of explosives had vanished as a result of ``theft and looting ... due to lack of security.'' The disappearance of the explosives has become a huge campaign issue in the U.S. presidential election. 10/28/04 04:36 Edited October 28, 2004 by FlaSoxxJim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Ah the Washington Times -- when I trust a source, I make sure it is a highly right wing biased source run by a guy who thinks he is the next coming of Jesus. I've seen some of the garbage that gets linked to in here... The WT is down right respectible compared to others... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 I've seen some of the garbage that gets linked to in here... The WT is down right respectible compared to others... C'mon, Matt Drudge has to earn a living too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 C'mon, Matt Drudge has to earn a living too. I don't think I have seen him advocate assassination or electoral fraud lately... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 The stories coming out of this admin are really getting ridiculous. If the missing explosives were moved BEFORE the invasion, the US knows who did it. They would just have to review the satellite spy tape that we had running and say "Smile you're on candid camera!". Nothing like getting caught on tape to ruin international relations. Yet it never happened so no pictures will surface. We had complete surveillance on Iraq before the war [and the lead up to war esp. as our gov't was worried about Saddam's WMD, him giving them to terrorists or rougue nations!]. Most likely, the weapons cache was looted during the war, when we [the US and the spy satellites] were more worried about fighting Iraqi troops instead of caring what happened at a weapons depot. For this admin. to claim ignorance about what happened to the weapons or start putting forth crock pot theories about Russian special forces being responsible is beyond absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Beck: exactly! If weapons were moved out before our invasion to Syria or terrorists, how did this make us safer? Doesn't that incriminate this administration more? Does that we armed the same people we were trying to prevent to get arms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Beck: exactly! If weapons were moved out before our invasion to Syria or terrorists, how did this make us safer? Doesn't that incriminate this administration more? Does that we armed the same people we were trying to prevent to get arms? If true it would show this admin is even more incompetent than we previously thought. They allowed dangerous weapons [and possibly WMD--if the diehards still believe Saddam had them] to be moved w/o their knowledge. The reliability of the entire intelligence system would be at stake. I think these guys see the writing on the wall, that they only have a few days left, and are trying desperately to make this story go away, by throwing anything out there to see if it will stick. Yet their confused stories make people ask more questions. What a tangled web they weave..... Can't say I'm surprised by their tactics. But truth eventually wins out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 The stories coming out of this admin are really getting ridiculous. If the missing explosives were moved BEFORE the invasion, the US knows who did it. They would just have to review the satellite spy tape that we had running and say "Smile you're on candid camera!". Nothing like getting caught on tape to ruin international relations. Yet it never happened so no pictures will surface. We had complete surveillance on Iraq before the war [and the lead up to war esp. as our gov't was worried about Saddam's WMD, him giving them to terrorists or rougue nations!]. Most likely, the weapons cache was looted during the war, when we [the US and the spy satellites] were more worried about fighting Iraqi troops instead of caring what happened at a weapons depot. For this admin. to claim ignorance about what happened to the weapons or start putting forth crock pot theories about Russian special forces being responsible is beyond absurd. Right now the Defense Department has said they are going to be looking through their tapes to try and figure out when this shipment was moved. They just need more time. Thats why I've been saying Wait for the Facts to come out before making any judgement. And since as of now their are like 20 different stories going out, why make a judgement and why campaign about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 If true it would show this admin is even more incompetent than we previously thought. They allowed dangerous weapons [and possibly WMD--if the diehards still believe Saddam had them] to be moved w/o their knowledge. The reliability of the entire intelligence system would be at stake. I think these guys see the writing on the wall, that they only have a few days left, and are trying desperately to make this story go away, by throwing anything out there to see if it will stick. Yet their confused stories make people ask more questions. What a tangled web they weave..... Can't say I'm surprised by their tactics. But truth eventually wins out Guys, so 1/10th of 1% (This is according to what I saw them say on CNN last night...not FoxNews) of the weapons dissapear because our intelligence didn't know they were there. If that turns out to be the case I don't think that makes our intelligence look incredibly horrible. Lets put things in perspective, their are always going to be slipups, thats why their is not one thing you can do to prevent another terrorist attack, you can only try to prevent them and do what you can to remove as many al-quaeda and other terrorist group ties as possible. WAIT For the Facts, thats all I'm saying. I think I've heard the Bush administration say this a few times and I know the Defense Department has said they are going back and reviewing these tapes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molto Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Why should John Kerry or his leftist surrogates be worried about whether something is true or not. If he can potentially use it to carp on Bush he'll do it, factual evidence to the contrary be damned. yeah, because the Bush administration doesn't jump to conclusions, right? this is what most politicians do and will continue to do. it's sad, but don't go and rip one person for doing something like this when it's done by both sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Guys, so 1/10th of 1% (This is according to what I saw them say on CNN last night...not FoxNews) of the weapons dissapear because our intelligence didn't know they were there. If that turns out to be the case I don't think that makes our intelligence look incredibly horrible. Lets put things in perspective, their are always going to be slipups, thats why their is not one thing you can do to prevent another terrorist attack, you can only try to prevent them and do what you can to remove as many al-quaeda and other terrorist group ties as possible. WAIT For the Facts, thats all I'm saying. I think I've heard the Bush administration say this a few times and I know the Defense Department has said they are going back and reviewing these tapes. I agree Kerry is using this screw up in Al Qaqaa as a political issue. Whatever happened to the explosives, the point is that there weren't enough troops in Iraq to begin with, and couldn't control large parts of the country. The larger case Kerry's trying to make is that Bush and co. screwed things up in Iraq, this is another example of their poor foreign policy judgment. Kerry's trying to show that Bush won't or can't admit he made any mistakes in Iraq, that he puts the blame on others again and again [the mission accomplished sign--the ship wanted it; the missing explosives-- Russia might have took them]. While it may seem like a small issue [i don't think so, because these roadside bombs that are killing and maiming many US troops aren't just being made with a few sticks of tnt, prob. from explosives from many such places as Al Qaqaa], it's a legitimate issue BTW-I'm talking about Iraq, not al qaeda and the war on terror. They are two different issues, no matter how much this admin. likes to blur the lines between them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Our intelligence knew that these explosives were there. That's the problem. If we didn't know they were there because they were undeclared, that would be one thing, but the IAEA knew and warned the US government about the high explosives with dual use purpose in both March and May of 2003. KSTP in Minn/St. Paul was embedded with troops that went to Al-QaQaa on April 18, 2003. Not saying this is bulletproof evidence, but they found video of bunkers containing high explosives that look like this stuff untouched, and unbroken IAEA seals. If the seal number they captured matches the seal numbers that IAEA used for this explosives, then the facts are out, no matter what the Pentagon says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 And the same with the Not So Swift Boat Vets right Nuke....? You wouldn't be trying to have a partisan hatchet job against Kerry now would you? Its easy to do a partisan hatchet job on someone when you have the guys own words to back you up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Its easy to do a partisan hatchet job on someone when you have the guys own words to back you up. Yeah too bad they took parts out of his speech that were out of context [if you saw/read all his testimony, you'd find that out] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Its easy to do a partisan hatchet job on someone when you have the guys own words to back you up. LOL... Have you heard some of the s*** your boy Bush has said lately? George Bush is a much bigger flip flopper. They are pissed John Kerry changed his mind from like a year ago or more. George Bush can't keep his f***ing story straight from day to day. What a joke. God I hope people are smart enough to see through him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.