The Myth Of The 'missing Explosives': A Shameless Lie

Hannibal · 10-29-2004, 10:35

BY RALPH PETERS

October 28, 2004 -- SHOULD the United Nations decide who be comes our president? Sen. John Kerry wouldn't mind. He's shamelessly promoting the lies that the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency is telling about Iraq.

A devious IAEA report suggests that 400 tons of explosives were spirited away by our enemies under the noses of our Keystone-Cops troops after the fall of Baghdad. The document just happened to be released in the closing days of our presidential election. Purely a coincidence, of course. Brought to you by those selfless U.N. bureaucrats who failed in Iraq and are now failing in Iran.

Since Kerry's willing to blame our troops for a scandal invented by America-haters, let's look at the story the military way, by the numbers.

One: The IAEA claims its inspectors visited the ammo dump at Al-Qaqaa on March 9, 2003, and found the agency's seals intact on bunkers containing sensitive munitions. Unverifiable, but let's assume that much is true.

Two: Faced with an impending invasion, Saddam's forces did what any military would do. They began dispersing ammunition stocks from every storage site that might be a Coalition bombing target. If the Iraqis valued it, they tried to move it. Before the war.

Three: Members of our 3rd Infantry Division — the heroes who led the march to Baghdad — reached the site in question in early April. Despite the pressures of combat, they combed the dump. Nothing was found. Al-Qaqaa was a vast junkyard.

Four: Our 101st Airborne Division assumed responsibility for the sector as the 3ID closed on Baghdad. None of the Screaming Eagles found any IAEA markers — even one would have been a red flag to be reported immediately.

Five: At the end of May, military teams searching for key Iraqi weapons scoured Al-Qaqaa. They found plenty of odds and ends — the detritus of war — but no IAEA seals. And no major stockpiles.

Six:Now, just before Election Day, the IAEA, a discredited organization embarrassed by the Bush administration's decision to call it on the carpet, suddenly realizes that 400 tons of phantom explosives went missing from the dump.

Seven: Even if repeated inspections by U.S. troops had somehow missed this deadly elephant on the front porch, and even if the otherwise-incompetent Iraqis had been so skilled and organized they were able to sneak into Al-Qaqaa and load up 400 tons of Saddam's love-powder, it would have taken a Teamsters' convention to get the job done.

Eight:If the Iraqis had used military transport vehicles of five-ton capacity, it would have required 80 trucks for one big lift, or, say, 20 trucks each making four trips. They would have needed special trolleys, forklifts, handling experts and skilled drivers (explosives aren't groceries). This operation could not have happened either during or after the war, while the Al-Qaqaa area was flooded with U.S. troops.

Nine: We owned the skies. And when you own the skies, you own the roads. We were watching for any sign of organized movement. A gaggle of non-Coalition vehicles driving in and out of an ammo dump would have attracted the attention of our surveillance systems immediately.

Ten:And you don't just drive high explosives cross-country, unless you want to hear a very loud bang. Besides, the Iraqis would have needed to hide those 400 tons of explosives somewhere else. Unless the uploaded trucks are still driving around Iraq.

Eleven:Even if the IAEA told the truth and the Iraqis were stealth-logistics geniuses who emptied the site's ammo bunkers under our noses, the entire issue misses a greater point: 400 tons of explosives amounted to a miniscule fraction of the stocks Saddam had built up. Coalition demolition experts spent months destroying more than 400,000 tons of Iraqi war-making materiel.

Our soldiers eliminated more than a thousand tons of packaged death for every ton the United Nations claims they missed. Does that sound like incompetence? Why hasn't our success been mentioned? Can't our troops get credit for anything?

Twelve: The bottom line is that, if the explosives were ever there, the Iraqis moved them before our troops arrived. There is no other plausible scenario.

Sen. Kerry knows this is a bogus issue. And he doesn't care. He's willing to accuse our troops of negligence and incompetence to further his political career. Of course, he did that once before. Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."

82nd Airborne Dad · 10-29-2004, 10:49

Bottom line Hannibal, Kerry lied about our troops before, and no matter how the media white-washed it the fact remains the same Kerry lied. A leopard never changes his spots.

Sad but true, our troops will never get a fair break, or the recognition from the media for the good they have done in Iraq. Kerry will only compound it every chance he gets, and a vote for Kerry, is a vote against the honor and service of our men and women in uniform. Plain and simple, he screwed them before, and he will continue to do so.

Remember Clinton . . . Remember Mogadishu!!

Kerry will lie again while good men die!!

Vote Bush in 2004!!

cranny11 · 10-29-2004, 11:08

I have a real big problem with the BS (kerry) campaign exploiting me and the army i serve with... does that piece of trash ever has a one sided view, or does he try to appeal to everyone...

Hannibal · 10-29-2004, 11:14

Quote:

Remember Clinton . . . Remember Mogadishu!!

You know this is something I was thinking about last night. the Dems opposed the invasion of Somalia all the way to the election. Then once in power do we stay the course? Nope, we turned it over to the UN and a bare minimum of SOF and light army forces. Then 9 months later that day in October showed exaclty how bad the Clinton (Sec Aspen) management of the situation was. Then we jump out of the country faster than rats off a sinking ship. Look at Somalaia now, a terrorist victory and widely known to be the reason for the empowerment of Al Queda in the 90's.

I believe that if Kerry is elected and he follows the same democratic model that the party did in Somaila then Iraq is doomed. I love it when people talk about grand coalitions being the right thing, I say look at Somalia.

-Jason

82nd Airborne Dad · 10-29-2004, 12:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hannibal

You know this is something I was thinking about last night. the Dems opposed the invasion of Somalia all the way to the election. Then once in power do we stay the course? Nope, we turned it over to the UN and a bare minimum of SOF and light army forces. Then 9 months later that day in October showed exaclty how bad the Clinton (Sec Aspen) management of the situation was. Then we jump out of the country faster than rats off a sinking ship. Look at Somalaia now, a terrorist victory and widely known to be the reason for the empowerment of Al Queda in the 90's.

I believe that if Kerry is elected and he follows the same democratic model that the party did in Somaila then Iraq is doomed. I love it when people talk about grand coalitions being the right thing, I say look at Somalia.

-Jason

AMEN Sir for your independent thinking!! Hopefully other will look to history and see that history "Always" repeats itself!!

las47032 · 10-30-2004, 04:08

ABC, NBC, FNC and CNN, but not CBS, on Wednesday night provided new details, about what is known to have happened at the al-Qaqaa facility in January to May of 2003, which cast more doubts upon the charge that the 377 tons of explosives disappeared after U.S. troops arrived. Jim Axelrod noted on the CBS Evenings News that "the President today finally broke his silence over the missing explosives in Iraq," but it was CBS which remained silent over the revelations which conflicted with their original anti-Bush administration spin. CBS, along with the New York Times, had put the story into play on Monday. Axelrod gloated over the negative impact on the Bush campaign: "Mr. Bush had to say something. The timing of the story couldn't be worse for him" since "the missing explosives are the kind of development that could push undecideds the other way."

On ABC's World News Tonight, Dean Reynolds ruled that Bush's "counterattack, that Kerry basically doesn't know what he's talking about" on what happened to the explosives, "does not address the fundamental problem that the Senator posed later in Minnesota." Reynolds then played this clip from Kerry: "You didn't guard the ammunitions dump. And now, our troops are at greater risk. That's the bottom line."

In the previous story on Bush's attacks on Kerry, ABC's Terry Moran had not charged that Kerry failed to "address" any point made by Bush.

NBC's Jim Miklaszewski, FNC's Bret Baier and CNN's Jamie McIntyre all relayed, as Miklaszewski explained on the NBC Nightly News, that Colonel Dave Perkins, commander of the brigade which first arrived at the compound and who the Pentagon on Wednesday made available to journalists, "told reporters from that time on it would have been almost impossible for anyone to remove explosives from the compound because the two main roads leading away were packed for weeks with U.S. military convoys." Miklaszewski added, in a disclosure also noted by Baier, that "the Pentagon is analyzing satellite photos of al Qaqaa taken shortly before the war, which reportedly show large trucks positioned around some bunkers in the vast complex."

FNC's Baier passed along on Special Report with Brit Hume how "Perkins also said he and his commanders were certain by what they saw on the road to Baghdad, that the Iraqi regime had ordered the weapons and explosives throughout the country to be disbursed."

CNN's McIntyre uniquely picked up on a Pentagon point which put the loss in perspective: "The lost stockpile amounted to less than one-tenth of one percent of the 400,000 tons of total munitions the U.S. has found in Iraq."

But were there really 377 tons at al-Qaqaa in the first place? ABC's Martha Raddatz ignored how satellite photos may show trucks removing material before the war and how clogged roads would have prevented removal once the U.S. troops got to the area, but on World News Tonight she reported: "We have obtained a confidential report from the inspectors [presumably the UN inspectors]. In this report, there seems to be a significant discrepancy between what the Iraqis say is missing and what the inspectors said was missing. The Iraqis say there was 141 tons of the explosive RDX in July of 2002. The inspectors, in this report, said there were only three tons left in January of 2003."

For the more detailed ABCNews.com version of the discrepancy between what Iraq claimed and the IAEA inspectors saw, see: www.abcnews.go.com

Now, a full rundown of Wednesday night, October 27, newscast coverage, starting with CBS which ignored all the discrepancies:

-- CBS Evening News. Dan Rather led his broadcast: "Good evening. The presidential campaign is down to six days now and the candidates were campaigning for any and all voters today, especially pitching for independents and party switchers, in battleground states. The battle lines today ranged from jobs and the economy to those still missing tons of explosives in Iraq."

Jim Axelrod reported from the trail: "After two days of relentless hammering from his Democratic opponent, the President today finally broke his silence over the missing explosives in Iraq."

Bush: "Our military is now investigating a number of possible scenarios, including that the explosives may have been moved before our troops even arrived at the site."

Axelrod: "Mr. Bush had to say something. The timing of the story couldn't be worse for him, which is why he didn't just leave it at an explanation, but instead attempted to turn John Kerry's criticism against him."

Bush: "A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without all knowing the facts is not a person you want as commander-in-chief." Axelrod: "Mr. Kerry was only too happy to have something to respond to. The longer the volley, the more the issue remains center stage."
Kerry: "Because of your wrong decisions, you owe America real answers about what happened, not just political attacks."

Bush TV ad: "Because of your service and sacrifice, we are defeating the terrorists where they live and plan."

Axelrod: "As his final ad shows, the President needs undecideds heading to the polls feeling strongly about his handling of national security. The missing explosives are the kind of development that could push undecideds the other way."

Bush: "As the citizens of this nation prepare to vote, I want to speak directly to the democrats."

Axelrod: "But his search for every last vote is no longer limited to undecideds. The President's now appealing to a group he's virtually ignored this campaign: Democrats...."

Source
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberal...20041028.asp#1

Joker · 10-30-2004, 08:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by las47032

But were there really 377 tons at al-Qaqaa in the first place? ABC's Martha Raddatz ignored how satellite photos may show trucks removing material before the war and how clogged roads would have prevented removal once the U.S. troops got to the area, but on World News Tonight she reported: "We have obtained a confidential report from the inspectors [presumably the UN inspectors]. In this report, there seems to be a significant discrepancy between what the Iraqis say is missing and what the inspectors said was missing. The Iraqis say there was 141 tons of the explosive RDX in July of 2002. The inspectors, in this report, said there were only three tons left in January of 2003."

Sounds like this belongs on the 'Cache of missing explosives' thread, especially since I've questioned if the explosives existed to be moved. Why do you insist on starting so many new threads? A whole load of the stuff you put in Politics comes under 'The case against Kerry'.