Russian Spec Ops Moved Weapons from Iraq to Syria prior to 3/03

[wmw999 2,126]

Do you have reasons, or is "Wendy said it" enough for you? If so, then you're giving way too much power to what I say.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[juanesky 0]

I would say it brings a smile seeing so much innocence...

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

I would say it brings a smile seeing so much innocence..

What's innocent about her statement...?

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[juanesky 0]

Perhaps is because you see life as rosy as she does. Do you even remember the USA for Africa "we are the world"?

Imagine that! over 15 years since the inception, Ethiopia, still is starving to death. Rosy, touchy solution to a very precarious situation did not bring lasting results.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Perhaps is because you see life as rosy as she does.

I don't see anything "rosy" in saying that if there were explosives that we knew of we should have guarded against anyone getting their hands on it. What else do you call "rosy": car bombs? Brain tumor?

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[billvon 2,405]

>What’s Kerry got proving that it was there and that it was Bush’s fault?

More:

Report: Video Shows Explosives Went Missing After War
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.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20041028/ts_nm/iraq_explosives_abc_dc

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Ok, fine, so the Russians took it to Syria.

And this eliminates any credibility to the claims of John Kerry. Once again...

On the topic of credibility, whatever happened to the story about those Russians? (see thread title).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Milo 0]

Quote

On the topic of credibility, whatever happened to the story about those Russians? (see thread title).

The Pentagon is backpedaling, they achieved their objective for this news cycle:

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aWyx6zPKWIVA&refer=europe

Quote

U.S. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John Shaw told the Washington Times in an interview published today that Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, ``almost certainly' removed munitions reported missing from al Qaqaa south of Baghdad before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

``We are looking at what Doctor Shaw said but at this point in time, we have no information to corroborate the story,'' Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said by telephone. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told reporters in Moscow, ``I've never seen any such information at all.''

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

On the topic of credibility, whatever happened to the story about those Russians? (see thread title).

The Pentagon is backpedaling, they achieved their objective for this news cycle:

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aWyx6zPKWIVA&refer=europe

Quote

U.S. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John Shaw told the Washington Times in an interview published today that Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, ``almost certainly' removed munitions reported missing from al Qaqaa south of Baghdad before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

``We are looking at what Doctor Shaw said but at this point in time, we have no information to corroborate the story,'' Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said by telephone. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told reporters in Moscow, ``I've never seen any such information at all.''

Oh. Yet another bogus story.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 3]

Remember this the next time you see a story in The Washington Times that seems a little too "convenient" that is favorable to the current Administration.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Since when did high explosives become WMD?

I thought WMD included nuclear, biological and chemical weapons only. Big Boy, Anthrax and Agent Orange for example.

Nuclear bombs require high explosives to compress the fissionable mass to a density that results in critical mass. But it's probably one of the easiest items to obtain.

[Paulipod 0]

Also, I guess if there is over 300 tons of the stuff.... en-mass that would be pretty destructive

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Since when did high explosives become WMD?

I thought WMD included nuclear, biological and chemical weapons only. Big Boy, Anthrax and Agent Orange for example.

Nuclear bombs require high explosives to compress the fissionable mass to a density that results in critical mass. But it's probably one of the easiest items to obtain.

Conventional high explosives are not considered WMDs.

Better to be blown apart than irradiated or gassed, I guess.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pajarito 0]

Well....
Just saw the video on MSNBC and I can't argue with that.
Assuming that it was taken at the time and location mentioned. I'll come right out on record and say I stand corrected on the issue of Russia moving the explosives. I don't know if that is as plausible anymore. I guess this story was continuing to develop over the week and they were searching for answers. It sure sounded like they reported it at the time as fact, though. Although, there's also satellite imagery showing large trucks in front of the bunker days prior to the invasion. What were they doing? Very suspicious. They had to be moving something, right? However, as far as the explosives go, it looks like they were there after we got there. To the troop’s defense, the video also states clearly that it was not their mission to secure this site but to search for WMD and fight their way through. Hopefully, more information will come out on this.

[pajarito 0]

New info from press conference today:

- Reporters weren't even sure exactly where they were when they reported the missing explosives. It may not have even been at Al-Quaqua.

- It appears that our own troops might have been the ones who actually took the explosives and delivered them for disposal (i.e. did their job).

- The General said that, although the amount of explosives in question is very routine to move for the US military and only consists of 1/1000th of the amount that has already been scarfed up and disposed of, it would be very unlikely, with the military presence there at the time, that looters would be able to drive the stuff off in trucks. It would have been noticed.

- UN was asked to destroy this stuff back in 95 and didn't. Wasn't worth their time since it wasn't WMD.

It appears that this still isn't factual enough to be touted as fact by John Kerry in his last week Bush bashing attempt. His accusations of incompetence on the side of our military is still without any real foundation.

[kallend 1,635]

Story keep changing, doesn't it. The stuff wasn't there when we arrived, then it was but the troops didn't have orders to secure it, now maybe they did move it after all but don't have good records so they don't know.

Always another f**king excuse.

Wasn't long ago that the right was using lack of record keeping by Iraq on its WMD elimination program as justification for the war (that is, after Duelfer told us that there weren't any WMDs after all).

In the end it will be like Abu Ghraib and My Lai - some enlisteds and junior officers will take the fall for it while the commanders get away.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,405]

>It may not have even been at Al-Quaqua.

. . . except that the video showed a UN-sealed facility, with crates labeled "AL QAQAA."

>It appears that our own troops might have been the ones who actually
>took the explosives and delivered them for disposal (i.e. did their job).

That would be great if that were the case, but it's odd that we would claim to know more about what the Russians are doing than about what our own troops are doing.

>it would be very unlikely, with the military presence there at the time, that
> looters would be able to drive the stuff off in trucks. It would have been
> noticed.

They carried off tons of uranium ore and dismantled entire buildings without anyone noticing. Iraq is a big place.

>It appears that this still isn't factual enough to be touted as fact by
>John Kerry in his last week Bush bashing attempt.

It's certainly factual enough to discuss, but I agree the evidence that "Bush left the explosives there to be looted" isn't all that supportable.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Story keep changing, doesn't it. The stuff wasn't there when we arrived, then it was but the troops didn't have orders to secure it, now maybe they did move it after all but don't have good records so they don't know.

Always another f**king excuse.

Wasn't long ago that the right was using lack of record keeping by Iraq on its WMD elimination program as justification for the war (that is, after Duelfer told us that there weren't any WMDs after all).

In the end it will be like Abu Ghraib and My Lai - some enlisteds and junior officers will take the fall for it while the commanders get away.

I believe what they're officially saying (did you listen to the press conference?) is that it's not definitive enough to say for sure. They've been trying all week to get to the root of the matter. Although it only deals with 1/1000th of the material that they've been concerned with disposing of. Kerry picked up a minute problem to bash Bush with and he can't even accurately support his claims. I still say it's weak. Very weak.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

>It may not have even been at Al-Quaqua.

. . . except that the video showed a UN-sealed facility, with crates labeled "AL QAQAA."

>It appears that our own troops might have been the ones who actually
>took the explosives and delivered them for disposal (i.e. did their job).

That would be great if that were the case, but it's odd that we would claim to know more about what the Russians are doing than about what our own troops are doing.

>it would be very unlikely, with the military presence there at the time, that
> looters would be able to drive the stuff off in trucks. It would have been
> noticed.

They carried off tons of uranium ore and dismantled entire buildings without anyone noticing. Iraq is a big place.

>It appears that this still isn't factual enough to be touted as fact by
>John Kerry in his last week Bush bashing attempt.

It's certainly factual enough to discuss, but I agree the evidence that "Bush left the explosives there to be looted" isn't all that supportable.

Did you listen to the press conference? Are you saying that the General who was in charge there isn't reputable?

[pajarito 0]

[billvon 2,405]

>Just watched the video again and I can see nothing of the sort.

See attached frame grab, from the KSTP website (the ABC affiliate that was there)

[pajarito 0]

Quote

>Just watched the video again and I can see nothing of the sort.

See attached frame grab, from the KSTP website (the ABC affiliate that was there)

Cool. All that shows is that it was there after our troops arrived. The General just spoke in a press conference and said that munitions were removed and destroyed by his troops and that it would be very unlikely, given the amounts that we're talking about and the equipment it would take to move it, that it could be taken without our knowing it. They've also said that there was mostly military traffic on the road during that time. Probability of looting? I'd say maybe some but not nearly as much as Kerry is accusing. Negligence on the side of Bush? I think not.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

>Just watched the video again and I can see nothing of the sort.

See attached frame grab, from the KSTP website (the ABC affiliate that was there)

Cool. All that shows is that it was there after our troops arrived. The General just spoke in a press conference and said that munitions were removed and destroyed by his troops and that it would be very unlikely, given the amounts that we're talking about and the equipment it would take to move it, that it could be taken without our knowing it. They've also said that there was mostly military traffic on the road during that time. Probability of looting? I'd say maybe some but not nearly as much as Kerry is accusing. Negligence on the side of Bush? I think not.

How many different excuses have you guys come up with now?

There's an awful lot of squirming going on - any excuse so that the Bush administration can avoid The Buck.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

How many different excuses have you guys come up with now?

I'm not coming up with "excuses." I don't think anyone else here is either. I'm just repeating what I've hear on the news and trying to figure stuff out.

Quote

There's an awful lot of squirming going on - any excuse so that the Bush administration can avoid The Buck.

They're still investigating and are trying to come up with the "facts" of what occurred "before jumping to conclusions." That means analyzing "all the evidence." Part of that includes the video mentioned. It also means including the testimony of the General in charge of that area at the time to put that video into "context." No "squirming" going on. Just careful analysis.

[PhillyKev 0]

The irony is that if there were careful analysis performed in advance of the rush to war, we wouldn't be having this discussion.