Whoops! Iraqi explosives disappear under our guard

[Guest MikeSC]

And they can provide proof that the stuff was stolen out from under our noses how? They can prove that they were there when we got there how? The Pentagon said they searched in April and found nothing.

 

But, again, continue with the clutching. If nothing else, you have lost your ability to claim that anybody is buying into a fraudulent story.

 

From Captain's Quarter's blog:

Unfortunately for the New York Times, no one gave a thought about the logistics of the notion that small bands of insurgents made off with 380 tons of explosives under the noses of the Coalition with no one noticing. CQ reader and retired Army Reserve Captain Ian Dodgson got paid to think about logistics, and he did some "cocktail-napkin" math that escaped the geniuses at the Paper of Record:

 

We're familiar with the NY Times story and the IAEA accusations that the "missing" explosives were looted from the Al-Qaqaa military base due to US negligence in securing the facility.

 

If I were a guerilla "looter" and I was planning such an operation from a military standpoint, here's what the task would require:

 

Assumptions:

 

-Each "looter" could haul comfortably about 25 pounds per trip to a truck. (of course after 12 hours that would require superhuman endurance)

 

-I'd allow 5 minutes per round trip to the truck

 

-Work day 12 hours

 

-assume security breaks down 1 week after war starts (that allows 2

weeks before the US troops arrive)

 

-each pickup truck can carry about 1/4 ton of explosives (I did a quick calculation based upon the dimensions and weight of a block of C-4 and the dimensions of an average small pickup) and it takes 15 minutes to either load or unload the truck.

 

-the secure hiding place for 380 tons of explosives is 30 minutes away.

 

Calculations:

 

-380 tons / [((12hrs/dayX60min/hr) / (5 min per load)) X (25 lbs per load) X 14 days] = 15 loaders X 2 = 30 loaders/unloaders

 

-30 loaders/unloaders times 200% for breaks, rest, inefficiency, etc. = 60 loaders and unloaders.

 

-380 tons / [(12hrs/day / 1 hr/round trip,load,unload) X (.25 tons per trip) X 14 days] = 10 trucks and drivers X 1.5 (contingency) = 15 trucks and drivers.

 

-4 trucks + 10-15 men to supply water, food and other logistical

requirements

 

Total = 19-20 trucks, 90 men working continuously for two weeks to "loot" facility.

 

Bottom line this operation would take the resources of AN ENTIRE COMPANY (approx. 100 men) OVER TWO WEEKS, good Intel to know exactly where the "right" explosives were hidden and a means of breaching huge steel doors and concrete of an ASP.

 

And all of this would have to be done in an area with numerous intel overflights that would be looking for exactly this kind of activity in the combat zone, and not get noticed at all. Like so much of what the New York Times, CBS, and the Kerry campaign feeds us ... it just doesn't add up.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

 

And, definitely, National Review's theory as to why this story was released now is looking more and more correct.

-=Mike

EDIT: Just to let you in, the theory from Nat'l Review is that the person who leaked this story was the head of the IEAE, Mohammed El Baradei. He was the source CBS was using and who switched over to the NY Times.

 

He has a MAJOR problem with Bush as the US is opposing him being appointed as head of the IEAE for a second term (nobody has ever been the head for two terms, and thus far, we had AQ Khan selling nuclear technology to anybody he could, N. Korea developing nukes, and India and Pakistan developing nukes during his tenure). So, he, according to the assumption, leaked this info to the press in an attempt to influence the US election.

 

I can actually give you a long piece detailing the rather lengthy reasons behind this theory, if you'd like.

[Guest SideFXs]

Humm, the U.N. trying to influence the Presidential Election. Who'd a thunk, Mike.

 

And why isn't anyone in the media screaming WMD explosives stolen under the U.N watch? They have certainly falsely blamed Bush and the U.S. military enough.

 

The bunker is discovered and documented by the U.N. Jan, 2003. Airborne 101st. roles in April 2003 and explosives are gone. Who's fault is this?

 

How in the Hell did the NYTimes, CBS, and Kerry think they could make this look like this was Bush's fault, by omitting a timeline, in their story? Thank God for the internet and Radio and dare I say it, NBC.

 

And if there were explosives powerful enough to detonate a nuclear device or disburse a chemical, might there have also been WMD components in the bunker too, that have disappeared?

 

If Kerry loses, I hope this is the last we have to deal with the hippie generation. Those spoiled, self-centered, lying, losers!

[Guest INXS]

it is almost laughable how some aspects of the media are attempting to cover this up and how some in this thread are dismissing the story.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3955007.stm

 

The US is playing down the significance of a UN letter saying almost 350 metric tons of high explosives went missing from an Iraqi base after the war.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said there was no risk of nuclear proliferation because of the theft.

 

It has become a big election issue after President George Bush was accused of incompetence by his Democrat rival.

 

Meanwhile, some US media reports have queried if the theft happened before US troops arrived at the base at al-Qaqaa.

 

NBC television reported that one of its correspondents was embedded with the 101st Airborne Division which temporarily took control of the base on 10 April 2003 but did not find any of the explosives.

 

However, other US outlets, including NBC's own news website, quoted Pentagon officials who said a search of the site after the US-led invasion had revealed the explosives to be intact.

 

To dismiss this as a left wing smear campaign is foolhardy at best. This isn't a non-story. It's not a creation by left wing media - it's a report by the UNITED NATIONS.

[Vyce 0]

I don't think people are downplaying it so much as pointing out that these weapons were stolen months ago, rather than just recently, which is very much what the NYT and CBS pieces implied.

 

If they were stolen months ago, it just falls under the "This war was badly mismanaged" criticism, which we all have heard ad nauseum and at this point have formed opinions on, either sympathetic or not to the administration.

 

If this story had come out on Sunday - as was CBS' original intent - then the confusion that it would have caused (again, with the implication that the weapons suddenly disappeared RECENTLY rather than were stolen MONTHS ago), than it would have been more damaging to Bush.

 

As it is, I think the story's self-destructing, and if anything, could hurt Bush's opposition.

[Guest MikeSC]

Nobody, whatsoever, can say when the explosives were stolen --- as the piece I posted stated, looters stealing them would be a rather lengthy and impossible-to-hide undertaking.

 

Logic ALONE indicates that there is no chance that looters took them.

 

And the IEAE letter demanding to know where the explosives are came down on Oct. 1 --- in late September, the US stated they opposed El Baradei remaining as head of the IEAE. On 10/10, Iraq stated they do not know where they are --- and this was leaked to the press less than 2 weeks after being received.

-=Mike

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

Well here's a new twist. Now media outlets are reporting that not only may there have been substantially less than the stated amounts missing, but the Washington Times and MSNBC are now saying that Russian troops entered Iraq before the war and removed it all.

 

Missing material article

 

Russian involvement?

 

Just thought I'd throw this into the political fire.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Much, much more than 380 tons of shit gets shipped out of a fairly busy warehouse in one shift.

 

How much can a semi carry? A dozen flatbeds, or big heavy military trucks..something of that nature. Lets say fifty guys storm this place in one night, having located and freed up their plunder beforehand. Say, half a dozen guys scouting the place and breaking in to do so. That could go unnoticed. Seeing as this is high explosive, it's probably pretty stable stuff just sitting around. It could be moved quickly and forcefully.

 

Forget 50 guys..if a group were willing to go in here and steal this shit, specifically, they'd have at least 2 heavy trucks full of people to move, maybe a forklift. If they had some industrial machinery to move goods, this'd be a snap.

 

Plus, recon flights are on a pretty timely schedule, I'd imagine. These could be timed out, possibly, giving "them" an interval.

 

I don't think the logistics of this are hard to figure at all, and toting 25 lbs over 12 hours does not require superhuman endurance.

 

The logistics aren't a good reason to say "this didn't happen." There's probably fifty other good ones, but I'd definitely say a determined group, timing it right, with the right equipment and manpower, could steal 380 tons of anything in a day.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I'd agree with AoO here.

 

But it seems the Russians are responsible. Darn them!

[Guest MikeSC]

Of course, we still don't know how much stuff is missing. Could be as little as 3 tons.

-=Mike

[jesse_ewiak 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...plosives_abc_dc

 

Report: Video Shows Explosives Went Missing After War

 

1 hour, 32 minutes ago

 

Top Stories - Reuters

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - ABC News on Thursday showed video that appeared to confirm that explosives that went missing in Iraq (news - web sites) did not disappear until after the United States had taken control of the facility where they were stored.

 

The disappearance of the hundreds of tons of explosives from the Al Qaqaa storage facility has become a hotly contested issue in the U.S. presidential campaign.

 

Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) said it was an example of President Bush (news - web sites) bungling the Iraq war. Bush countered that Kerry was making wild accusations without knowing the facts.

 

Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said it was possible that the explosives had been removed from the site before the U.S. forces arrived there.

 

ABC said the video was shot by an affiliate TV station embedded with the 101st Airborne Division when members of the division passed through the facility on April 18, nine days after the fall of Baghdad.

 

ABC said experts who have studied the images say the barrels seen in the video contain the high explosive HMX, and U.N. markings on the sealed containers were clear.

 

The barrels were found inside locked bunkers that had been sealed by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency just before the war began, ABC reported.

 

 

 

Hmm...maybe those embeds weren't such a genius idea.

[Guest MikeSC]

Funny, no soldier actually SAW a single seal from the IEAE. That much is not even disputed.

 

I'll wait for, you know, actual evidence. I'll hold this as being valid as CBS' attempts to claim that their memos were real.

-=Mike

...Besides, the pics that'll be released by the DoD tomorrow show that they were moved the day before the invasion...

[2GOLD 0]

Yahoo is having an interesting speculation day for news.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yahoo is having an interesting speculation day for news.

I am SO glad the media isn't in the tank for Kerry.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Funny, no soldier actually SAW a single seal from the IEAE. That much is not even disputed.

Well, I guess we can concede that an embeded reporter spotted that.

 

 

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=1

 

Besides, the pics that'll be released by the DoD tomorrow show that they were moved the day before the invasion

 

We'll see

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/ir...aa-imagery4.htm

 

DoD released on Oct. 28, 2004, imagery showing two trucks parked outside one of the 56 bunkers of the Al Qa Qaa Explosive Storage Complex approximately 20 miles south of Baghdad, Iraq, on March 17, 2003. According to the release: "It is not believed that all 56 bunkers contained High Melting Explosive also known as HMX. A large, tractor-trailer (yellow arrow) is loaded with white containers with a smaller truck parked behind it.

 

However, a comparison of features in the DoD-released imagery with available commercial satellite imagery, combined with the use of an IAEA map showing the location of bunkers used to store the HMX explosives, reveals that the trucks pictured on the DoD image are not at any of the nine bunkers indentified by the IAEA as containing the missing explosive stockpiles.

 

maybe the images revealed will be Russian trucks

[Guest MikeSC]

From that link:

The evidence is in videotape shot by Reporter Dean Staley and Photographer Joe Caffrey at or near the Al Qaqaa munitions facility.

At --- or near. Hmm, a little bit of wiggle-room, no?

 

No, I won't concede that anybody saw anything like that at Al-Qaqaa.

 

And given their long-standing tradition of incompetence, I don't take anything IEAE says about anything.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

George W. Bush as a military leader is embarrasing, and who even knows if Kerry would be better whatsoever, but our current leadership is just embarrasing.

 

That is all.

[Guest MikeSC]

George W. Bush as a military leader is embarrasing, and who even knows if Kerry would be better whatsoever, but our current leadership is just embarrasing.

 

That is all.

And NCM, long-known expert on all things military, speaks.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

George W. Bush as a military leader is embarrasing, and who even knows if Kerry would be better whatsoever, but our current leadership is just embarrasing.

 

That is all.

And NCM, long-known expert on all things military, speaks.

-=Mike

Well so nice to be rebuked by a fellow expert on all things military.

 

I didn't say anything about our military, besides insult the commander and chief, who has been miserable in that position, and is running into bungle after bungle.

[Guest MikeSC]

Again, thanks. Your expertise is impressive.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Again, thanks. Your expertise is impressive.

-=Mike

As is yours......?

[teke184 0]

Let's see if we can look at track records as CinC between Bush and a so-called "great" president...

 

 

Bush destroyed the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Iraqi army under Hussein in Iraq in record time. Since then, he's installed democratic governments in both countries, with Afghanistan already holding the first elections in its history and Iraq holding its first FAIR elections this January.

 

John F. Kennedy, in contrast, supported a failed invasion of Cuba that lost more lives in a week than the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq have lost in three years. He also stepped up support for the corrupt government of South Vietnam, increasing the number of "military advisors" sent to the country significantly, leading his successor LBJ into fighting the bloodiest ground war for the country since World War II.

 

 

 

Bush did a better job but Kennedy is seen as the Grand Poobah of 20th century presidents because the press has a hard-on for him.

[Guest MikeSC]

Let's see if we can look at track records as CinC between Bush and a so-called "great" president...

 

 

Bush destroyed the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Iraqi army under Hussein in Iraq in record time. Since then, he's installed democratic governments in both countries, with Afghanistan already holding the first elections in its history and Iraq holding its first FAIR elections this January.

 

John F. Kennedy, in contrast, supported a failed invasion of Cuba that lost more lives in a week than the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq have lost in three years. He also stepped up support for the corrupt government of South Vietnam, increasing the number of "military advisors" sent to the country significantly, leading his successor LBJ into fighting the bloodiest ground war for the country since World War II.

 

 

 

Bush did a better job but Kennedy is seen as the Grand Poobah of 20th century presidents because the press has a hard-on for him.

But Kennedy banged women on the side. Apparently, infidelity is the key to the media's heart.

 

I loved this piece, from Babalublog.

Brave men spin in their graves, Mr. Kerry

 

There are old men in my family, very esteemed and revered men, who served in the Brigade 2506 during the Bay of Pigs invasion. They saw their fellow soldiers killed and served time, under deplorable and inhumane conditions, in Fidel Castro's gulags. These men had the courage to risk their lives for the freedom of their country. Their operation was a complete fiasco because of a waffling US President, betrayed by a man with the initials JFK.

 

Today, another man with the initials JFK had the audacity to cite the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, using the lives and memories of these men who believed the armed forces of the United States of America to be not only the best in the world, but their ally, and compare it with the War in Iraq.

 

I am completely stunned. What a great diservice Mr. Kerry does to those in the armed forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, dishonoring not only those Americans serving their country, but their allies. Like the men of Brigade 2506, the Iraqi's are fighting for their freedom. They depend on the strength of not just the US forces serving alongside them, but of the strength and conviction of the one man leading them.

 

John Forbes Kerry is not fit walk amongst these men, much less lead them.

Posted by Val Prieto at October 28, 2004 04:55 PM | TrackBack

http://www.babalublog.com/archives/001126.html

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

BTW, just to show that NOTHING will stop them in their attempts to oust Bush, 60 Minutes will air this story Sunday:

 

IN HARM'S WAY - Even though roadside explosive devices account for half of all the war's U.S. casualties, soldiers are still getting killed and wounded by them because the Pentagon hasn't provided enough fully-armored vehicles to protect them. Steve Kroft reports.

 

A report where, no doubt, they won't actually investigate the problem and will, instead, put the blame on Bush.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

the latest story is that we moved out 200 tons of this stuff in April. Although you'd think this would be information that would have been mentioned on Monday.

 

This should be filed under "October Surprise" because the chameleon-ish reaction from the White House definately shows us that they didn't see this coming. Since if you expect something specific to come up, you usually don't have a different alibi for every day

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

John F. Kennedy, in contrast, supported a failed invasion of Cuba that lost more lives in a week than the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq have lost in three years.

 

Funny, none of those were American casualties.

[Guest MikeSC]

the latest story is that we moved out 200 tons of this stuff in April. Although you'd think this would be information that would have been mentioned on Monday.

 

This should be filed under "October Surprise" because the chameleon-ish reaction from the White House definately shows us that they didn't see this coming. Since if you expect something specific to come up, you usually don't have a different alibi for every day

Too bad it was also a major lie.

 

But, hey, we should all be glad that the MSM is so impartial.

-=Mike