380 tons stolen *BEFORE* troops arrived

[conjur]

Appears to be a bust.

Apparently, this guy "thinks" this and "thinks" that.


No concrete proof. Saying it was destroyed/moved/destroyed in a fire.


They're all over the place.

 

[conjur]

http://www.c-span.org/watch/in...sc=&ArchiveDays=30

Streaming on C-SPAN 2


Reporters asking questions.

 

[CaptnKirk]

"A bunch of mad Bush Frat Brothers came bustin' in - and thinking that it
was free coke snorted up the whole 377 tons and then fled in a stupor".

 

[Mayax]

I'm still curious to know why Saddam gave Syria several billlion prior to the invasion.

 

[conjur]

Maj. Austin Pearson stating he saw no seals. KSTP video shows seals on April 18. Maj. Pearson was only briefed on the video, hasn't seen it.

 

[chess9]

More nonsense.

Why do they pull stunts like this? They must have zero respect for the intelligence of the American public.....

-Robert

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: conjur
More right-wingers blaming the troops. Sickening.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410280003

conjur, can you tell me who is to blame?

 

[conjur]

Pentagon spokesman Di Rita trying to downplay the missing explosives calling them 1/1000th of the explosives found in Iraq.


The whole press conference leaves more questions than it does answers.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: conjur
More right-wingers blaming the troops. Sickening.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410280003

conjur, can you tell me who is to blame?

Uhh...gee....hmm....let's see.

Who was directing the war? Hmm...politicians in the White House and a civilian at the head of the Pentagon?

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: conjur
More right-wingers blaming the troops. Sickening.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410280003

conjur, can you tell me who is to blame?

Uhh...gee....hmm....let's see.

Who was directing the war? Hmm...politicians in the White House and a civilian at the head of the Pentagon?

ok, i'm trying to understand your point-of-view. do you agree with this scenario?

President tells the SecDef we need to invade country X.
SecDef tells the Pentagon to come up with a plan.
Generals develop an invasion plan, sent to C-in-C of army in vicinity of country x.
C-in-C has orders to take capital as part of plan. He sends Corps A and B to attack capital.
...
... (follow the trend)
...
...
Battalion commander gives orders to secure northwest quandrant.
Company commander assigns parameters and sends several platoons to guard different areas of quadrant.
Building in Squad commanders area contains explosives.

ok, my question is, who is responsible for securing those explosives?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: conjur
More right-wingers blaming the troops. Sickening.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410280003

conjur, can you tell me who is to blame?

Uhh...gee....hmm....let's see.

Who was directing the war? Hmm...politicians in the White House and a civilian at the head of the Pentagon?

ok, i'm trying to understand your point-of-view. do you agree with this scenario?

President tells the SecDef we need to invade country X because he is jonesing to enact the PNAC vision
SecDef tells the Pentagon to come up with a plan with the bare minimum number of troops to take over the country, regardless of the ability to secure the peace and secure ammo dumps/chemical plants/etc.
Generals develop an invasion plan, sent to C-in-C of army in vicinity of country x while said plan still lacks any details for securing the country post-invasion
C-in-C has orders to take capital as part of plan. He sends Corps A and B to attack capital while ignoring the ammo dumps and other IAEA labeled sites that were warned needed to be protected
...
... (follow the trend)
...
...
Battl

You left out the parts in bold.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: conjur
More right-wingers blaming the troops. Sickening.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410280003

conjur, can you tell me who is to blame?

Uhh...gee....hmm....let's see.

Who was directing the war? Hmm...politicians in the White House and a civilian at the head of the Pentagon?

ok, i'm trying to understand your point-of-view. do you agree with this scenario?

President tells the SecDef we need to invade country X because he is jonesing to enact the PNAC vision
SecDef tells the Pentagon to come up with a plan with the bare minimum number of troops to take over the country, regardless of the ability to secure the peace and secure ammo dumps/chemical plants/etc.
Generals develop an invasion plan, sent to C-in-C of army in vicinity of country x while said plan still lacks any details for securing the country post-invasion
C-in-C has orders to take capital as part of plan. He sends Corps A and B to attack capital while ignoring the ammo dumps and other IAEA labeled sites that were warned needed to be protected
...
... (follow the trend)
...
...
Battalion commander gives orders to secure northwest quandrant.
Company commander assigns parameters and sends several platoons to guard different areas of quadrant.
Building in Squad commanders area contains explosives.

ok, my question is, who is responsible for securing those explosives?

You left out the parts in bold.

conjur, you started replying before i added the rest. can you please answer the question in my first post? thanks.

i'm really trying to understand the other side on this because i don't get it.

my point is that as a plan is executed it gets more specific as to what the objectives are as it filters down the chain-of-command. do you not agree this is the case?

 

[conjur]

I see where you're going with this but it's a diversionary tactic.

Here are the facts:

1) IAEA had tagged these items and inspected the facility as late as March, 2003. IAEA had warned the US of this facility and the explosives contained therein and to be sure it was protected.
2) First US troops in the area on or around April 3-4, 2003 and they see this facility but do not stick around to protect it. Some see explosives, some see IAEA tags, some see broken seals, etc.
3) KSTP news crew comes along on April 18, 2003 and takes video of bunkers still sealed. A soldier cuts open the lock on one and they go in and take video of all kinds of material including what seems to be the RMX/HMX explosives still tagged by the IAEA.
4) US troops move on out to Baghdad and no one is ordered to remain to protect the facility.
5) 18 months later, no one knows where the explosives are.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: conjur
Pentagon spokesman Di Rita trying to downplay the missing explosives calling them 1/1000th of the explosives found in Iraq.


The whole press conference leaves more questions than it does answers.

Well you need to understand that their slowly recovering the remaing 1/1000 everyday. their laying all over the roads in iraq in the form of IEDs. Sometime the trucks even run over them not even knowing they were there.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: conjur
I see where you're going with this but it's a diversionary tactic.

Here are the facts:

1) IAEA had tagged these items and inspected the facility as late as March, 2003. IAEA had warned the US of this facility and the explosives contained therein and to be sure it was protected.
2) First US troops in the area on or around April 3-4, 2003 and they see this facility but do not stick around to protect it. Some see explosives, some see IAEA tags, some see broken seals, etc.
3) KSTP news crew comes along on April 18, 2003 and takes video of bunkers still sealed. A soldier cuts open the lock on one and they go in and take video of all kinds of material including what seems to be the RMX/HMX explosives still tagged by the IAEA.
4) US troops move on out to Baghdad and no one is ordered to remain to protect the facility.
5) 18 months later, no one knows where the explosives are.

it's not a diversionary tactic. i'm just trying to understand why you and others here would blame Bush for this. In reference to what I bolded above, who do you think should have made that decision? Bush? Rumsfeld? a 4 star? who?

Ok, let me ask you this. If you brought your car (say a Ford, i don't know what you have) to the dealer to get your rearview mirror fixed because it was loose, and the tech not only didn't fixed it but broke it clean off, would you say William Ford Jr (ceo of ford) is responsible?

 

[chess9]

This is nothing more than a DESPERATION tactic. Bush knows this reflects poorly on one of his biggest strengths-the war on terror. He has IN FACT put US troops and American citizens at greater risk. The backlash to the weapons debacle is not going to be very large, but if the race is tight....

-Robert

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: conjur
I see where you're going with this but it's a diversionary tactic.

Here are the facts:

1) IAEA had tagged these items and inspected the facility as late as March, 2003. IAEA had warned the US of this facility and the explosives contained therein and to be sure it was protected.
2) First US troops in the area on or around April 3-4, 2003 and they see this facility but do not stick around to protect it. Some see explosives, some see IAEA tags, some see broken seals, etc.
3) KSTP news crew comes along on April 18, 2003 and takes video of bunkers still sealed. A soldier cuts open the lock on one and they go in and take video of all kinds of material including what seems to be the RMX/HMX explosives still tagged by the IAEA.
4) US troops move on out to Baghdad and no one is ordered to remain to protect the facility.
5) 18 months later, no one knows where the explosives are.

it's not a diversionary tactic. i'm just trying to understand why you and others here would blame Bush for this. In reference to what I bolded above, who do you think should have made that decision? Bush? Rumsfeld? a 4 star? who?

Ok, let me ask you this. If you brought your car (say a Ford, i don't know what you have) to the dealer to get your rearview mirror fixed because it was loose, and the tech not only didn't fixed it but broke it clean off, would you say William Ford Jr (ceo of ford) is responsible?

First, your analogy is completely baseless.

Second, securing the ammo dumps and the chemical/nuclear sites should have been one of the key priorities for the immediate post-invasion phase. Would you not agree? Without that stability and protection, it gives the insurgents and potential terrorists access to materials and targets.

This is evidence that the only plans in existence were for the invasion and, has been shown before, the post-invasion plan is a slide that reads, "To be determined".



BTW, found a summary of the press conference from today:

HMX question not answered

Di Rita at the beginning spinning it.

1. 10,000 weapons caches, missing explosives are 1/1000th
2. No definitive conclusions
3. Units arrived in early April met by Iraqi forces
4. Initial report very incomplete
5. Some units assigned task of removing weapons at the facility
6. Weapons destroyed that day only some part of the universe of weapons destroyed.
7. Major Pearson 3rd ID Ordinance expert.
- Instructor in Maryland
- April 03 in support of "elms"?
- Maps, visuals studied
- Commander of ordinance company - lsa dogwood
- Multiple missions to clear ordinance, schools - residences, etc.
- Objective "elms" includes Al qaqa
- US forces broke down protective walls to enter the facility.
- Mission find exposed ammo that could be a threat. 9 units that could carry 33 tons of ordinance. 250 tons. a variety of ammo. Large boxes of plasitc explosives (RDX). Maybe only 3 tons.

- used captured ammo to destroy the ammo they found. 7000 tons of captured ammo

- fire in june 2003 destroyed captured ammo.

Perception that the military forces did not have a systematic approach to:
- eliminating regime
- limiting casualties
- securing ordinance

Question:
What type of ammo did you destroy?
Answer:
I'm not an expert on ordinance ID. TNT, Plastic Explosive, detination cord, phosphorus etc.

Question:
What no HMX?

Answer:
We'll have more later.

Question:
Did you see the video?
Answer:
No

Question:
Based on what the Major said, how do you determine that some of what the Major destroyed was the missing explosives

Answer: We think that some of the RDX was in the stuff that was destroyed. We don't know for sure. we need more specifics from the IAEA to clarify.

Question:
Did you go into Bunkers?
A:
Yes those that were easily accessible. Palettized boxes of cord (RDX)

q:
No percentage of what you took out that was RDX?
A:
No, we are pursuing that

q:
possible to move HDX between April 18 and May without military knowing?

A;
We did it in a day, moved 250 tons, not a major operation. didn't see hostilities.

q: can you tell us definitively that anything you destroyed was the iaea explosives?

A: I don't know (dirita steps in we do not have the definitive answer, even the number you are using is not definitive. we are trying to better understand the numbers.

q: did you see seals?

a: I went into bunkers that were exposed, I didn't see seals

q: the video shows seals?

a: we are still looking into it (dirita)

q: What date?

a: April 13th

q: what pictures did you have?

a: digital photos of boxes similar to 101st airborn

q: troops waiting for your arrival

a: not troops there (dirita 101st was there)

q: how much was left?

a: I don't know, my mission was to find easily found stuff (dirita confirms some left because the 101st found it on the 18th)

q: how you square all this with rumsfeld comment His view that the stuff was removed prior to the war. nothing else was possible. dirita - a don't remember precisely what rummy said. Unusual activity - large trucks in front of bunkers, more photos not released.

q: Is this just another potential scenario?

a: I'm trying to tell you that we don't know what happened, we are trying to better understand it we will continue to provide facts.

End of news conference

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: conjur
I see where you're going with this but it's a diversionary tactic.

Here are the facts:

1) IAEA had tagged these items and inspected the facility as late as March, 2003. IAEA had warned the US of this facility and the explosives contained therein and to be sure it was protected.
2) First US troops in the area on or around April 3-4, 2003 and they see this facility but do not stick around to protect it. Some see explosives, some see IAEA tags, some see broken seals, etc.
3) KSTP news crew comes along on April 18, 2003 and takes video of bunkers still sealed. A soldier cuts open the lock on one and they go in and take video of all kinds of material including what seems to be the RMX/HMX explosives still tagged by the IAEA.
4) US troops move on out to Baghdad and no one is ordered to remain to protect the facility.
5) 18 months later, no one knows where the explosives are.

it's not a diversionary tactic. i'm just trying to understand why you and others here would blame Bush for this. In reference to what I bolded above, who do you think should have made that decision? Bush? Rumsfeld? a 4 star? who?

Ok, let me ask you this. If you brought your car (say a Ford, i don't know what you have) to the dealer to get your rearview mirror fixed because it was loose, and the tech not only didn't fixed it but broke it clean off, would you say William Ford Jr (ceo of ford) is responsible?

In your analogy you would be Bush, and it would be your fault for buying a Ford. :light:

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: conjur
I see where you're going with this but it's a diversionary tactic.

Here are the facts:

1) IAEA had tagged these items and inspected the facility as late as March, 2003. IAEA had warned the US of this facility and the explosives contained therein and to be sure it was protected.
2) First US troops in the area on or around April 3-4, 2003 and they see this facility but do not stick around to protect it. Some see explosives, some see IAEA tags, some see broken seals, etc.
3) KSTP news crew comes along on April 18, 2003 and takes video of bunkers still sealed. A soldier cuts open the lock on one and they go in and take video of all kinds of material including what seems to be the RMX/HMX explosives still tagged by the IAEA.
4) US troops move on out to Baghdad and no one is ordered to remain to protect the facility.
5) 18 months later, no one knows where the explosives are.

it's not a diversionary tactic. i'm just trying to understand why you and others here would blame Bush for this. In reference to what I bolded above, who do you think should have made that decision? Bush? Rumsfeld? a 4 star? who?

Ok, let me ask you this. If you brought your car (say a Ford, i don't know what you have) to the dealer to get your rearview mirror fixed because it was loose, and the tech not only didn't fixed it but broke it clean off, would you say William Ford Jr (ceo of ford) is responsible?

First, your analogy is completely baseless.

Second, securing the ammo dumps and the chemical/nuclear sites should have been one of the key priorities for the immediate post-invasion phase. Would you not agree? Without that stability and protection, it gives the insurgents and potential terrorists access to materials and targets.

This is evidence that the only plans in existence were for the invasion and, has been shown before, the post-invasion plan is a slide that reads, "To be determined".

[/quote]

i don't think all the facts are in yet. i'm sure there was a directive to secure weapons depots and chemical/nuclear sites. it is a part of any military operation to cutoff and capture your enemies supplies. I think this one was missed. I don't see how that was the fault of the President. I would say the exact same thing if it was Clinton or Kerry that was President.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: conjur
I see where you're going with this but it's a diversionary tactic.

Here are the facts:

1) IAEA had tagged these items and inspected the facility as late as March, 2003. IAEA had warned the US of this facility and the explosives contained therein and to be sure it was protected.
2) First US troops in the area on or around April 3-4, 2003 and they see this facility but do not stick around to protect it. Some see explosives, some see IAEA tags, some see broken seals, etc.
3) KSTP news crew comes along on April 18, 2003 and takes video of bunkers still sealed. A soldier cuts open the lock on one and they go in and take video of all kinds of material including what seems to be the RMX/HMX explosives still tagged by the IAEA.
4) US troops move on out to Baghdad and no one is ordered to remain to protect the facility.
5) 18 months later, no one knows where the explosives are.

it's not a diversionary tactic. i'm just trying to understand why you and others here would blame Bush for this. In reference to what I bolded above, who do you think should have made that decision? Bush? Rumsfeld? a 4 star? who?

Ok, let me ask you this. If you brought your car (say a Ford, i don't know what you have) to the dealer to get your rearview mirror fixed because it was loose, and the tech not only didn't fixed it but broke it clean off, would you say William Ford Jr (ceo of ford) is responsible?

In your analogy you would be Bush, and it would be your fault for buying a Ford. :light:

i said conjur had the ford

 

[smashp]

q: can you tell us definitively that anything you destroyed was the iaea explosives?

A: I don't know (dirita steps in we do not have the definitive answer, even the number you are using is not definitive. we are trying to better understand the numbers.

q: did you see seals?

a: I went into bunkers that were exposed, I didn't see seals

q: the video shows seals?

a: we are still looking into it (dirita)

Uhhhh we just , uhhhh really dont have a darn clue whats going on.........










Lack of leadership in the military......That is the real problem.

 

[conjur]

Another great response from Di Rita from today's dog-and-pony show:

Q: "How do you square this with what Rumsfeld said?"

A: "Well, I haven't read the transcript. Even thought I was with him when he said it, I'm not sure of his exact words. Here's what you should take away from this..."

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: conjur
Another great response from Di Rita from today's dog-and-pony show:

Q: "How do you square this with what Rumsfeld said?"

A: "Well, I haven't read the transcript. Even thought I was with him when he said it, I'm not sure of his exact words. Here's what you should take away from this..."

you do realize the election is a few days away? both sides are being VERY careful of what they say.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: conjur
Another great response from Di Rita from today's dog-and-pony show:

Q: "How do you square this with what Rumsfeld said?"

A: "Well, I haven't read the transcript. Even thought I was with him when he said it, I'm not sure of his exact words. Here's what you should take away from this..."

what a joke.

"this is what we WANT you to think"

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: conjur
Another great response from Di Rita from today's dog-and-pony show:

Q: "How do you square this with what Rumsfeld said?"

A: "Well, I haven't read the transcript. Even thought I was with him when he said it, I'm not sure of his exact words. Here's what you should take away from this..."

what a joke.

"this is what we WANT you to think"

And where is the outcry from the Bush supporters about Giuliani blaming the troops for the missing explosives??


Had Kerry or Edwards said that we'd never hear the end of it!!


Liberal media my ass.