NBC: Explosives Vanished Before Troops Arrived

Newsmax reports that John Edwards had the following to say about the Iraqi explosives story at a campaign stop in Wilmington, Ohio:

" These are exactly the kind of explosives terrorists want. They're the dangerous weapons we wanted to keep from falling in the hands of terrorists. And now these explosives are out there, and we have no idea who's got them." - Edwards

So Edwards is now acknowledging that when we invaded Iraq Saddam Hussein possessed "exactly" the kind of "dangerous weapons" that "terrorists want." Does Edwards still believe that this was "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?"

http://www.powerlineblog.com/

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008316.php

Well said!

 

He's flip flopping again. Kerry makes me dizzy!

 

I suppose it would be terribly unkind to point out that the terrorists were unable to get these weapons, until Bush made it possible for them.

Perhaps, if we had a plan to deal with things like that, we might have gone there first to secure the area after we destroyed Saddam's power.

But we didn't, and so it was the best Christmas ever for the terrorists. Thanks to Dubya.

 

It would be much better for you to just tell the truth, Galatian.

Bush did not make it possible for them to get the explosives. Can you not read? They were gone before the troops got there. (I don't know how many times it has to be said.) Furthermore, we do not even know that the terrorists have them. That is pure speculation. NO one knows where they are.

Follow closely here:
1. Weapons there.
2. Weapons gone.
3. US troops arrive to guard it.

Now, if you study very hard, you will see that when the troops got there, there was nothing to guard.

There have long been suggestions that Saddam himself trucked things like these into Syria and other places. The WMDs may likely have been the subject of such transportation. Experts say it would have been virtually impossible to truck this stuff out without being seen after the invasion started. It would have taken a very large number of grain haulers, traveling roads that were jammed with troops and supply trucks. Everything we know points to the fact that they were gone before the troops got there.


What this points out is the hypocrisy of Kerry.

1. We should have guarded this place ... which means we would have had to invade earlier.

2. Iraq had no WMDs ... except these ones that the terrorists now have their hands (allegedly ... we don't even know that they have it).

 

The Galation states:

And what would you call Saddam!??

 

Listen ...... you can hear the slither of the left.......
Can we say SINISTER!!!!!!!

 

Show THIS ARTICLE to those who will blame Bush for this.

This falls directly on the U.N. monitors, nowhere else.

 

DOUBLE POST

 

I posted this on another thread but it fits better here:

I was just watching Hannity and Colmes and they had a soldier on that had been in Iraq when the war started. He said that they had gone to the bunkers that the weapons "mysteriously" dissappeared from and said they were NOT there from the beginning. He said that he felt personally offended by Kerry using this in his attempt to win the election.

Kerry is demoralizing the very HEROES that we have over. Then they try to say that they are not attacking the troops but the administration. That sounds SO ridiculous even to me. For Pete's sake, Bush is not over there---it is our military. So it IS a personal attack on the troops! Kerry is a desperate man and just when I think I can respect him less he manages to do just that.

 

In the last 14 elections i voted early
by absentee ballot only once.
I've NEVER let any new report the last week
(which cannot be verified independantly)
change my mind about who to vote for.

 

Tomorrow's Washington Times features an article by Bill Gertz in which John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, says that Russian troops "almost certainly" helped Saddam's men clean the Al Qaqaa site out before the Iraq War started.

We'll have more on this tomorrow. One way or another, it appears clear that the 380 tons of explosives that are now "missing" were moved by Saddam prior to the start of the war. I suppose the point is too obvious to be worth making, but 380 tons is a lot of material--approximately 38 semi-truck loads. Yet it has, apparently, completely disappeared, probably because it was shipped to Syria before the war started. Do you suppose that, whereever the 380 tons are now, there might be a little extra room for some vials of anthrax, sarin, nerve gas, etc.?

DEACON adds: If Shaw's version, as reported by the Washington Times, holds up and (as importantly) gets heard, the consequences for Kerry could be serious. The Senator will have (a) jumped to a conclusion that wasn't supported by the facts, (b) assumed the incompetence of our troops, (c) confirmed President Bush's position that Iraq had weapons worth worrying about, and (d) unleashed evidence that, as Rocket Man notes, suggests that chemical and biological weapons could easily have been moved out of Iraq just before we invaded. In light of the final point, though, what puzzles me is this: if the Defense Department has evidence that the Russians helped clean out Alqaqaa, why haven't we heard about this before now (or did I just miss it). Evidence that Iraqi weapons, any weapons, were moved out of the country by the Russians would have been helpful to the administration long before now. Maybe we learned about it recently, as relations with Russia have improved.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008341.php

 

Problem is, the first American units arriving at the base found the bunkers still sealed from the UN inspections.

Only later did troops return and find the seals broken and the material gone.

 

Thats not what I understand but it wouldn't have mattered anyway. The stuff could have been removed without breaking a seal as the following shows.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1

I think the stuff disappeared on the weapons inspectors watch and what we see now is a case of CYA.

There's something even more interesting here. After all the ranting and raving Kerry has done about taking the time to get it right, what does he do. He gets his intelligence from the NYT's and CBS and goes right on the attack without checking the facts first.

 

Galatian stated:

There was a young soldier on Hannity and Colmes last night that said that the bunkers were open when they arrived! They stopped by on their way to Bagdad. How come no one will listen to those that have seen this site with their own eyes??

 

What is the young soldier's name?

The OP was based on the Drudge Report which in turn based its report on NBC News. NBC News has since revised its report. From the NY Sun link supplied by Bro. Curtis:

This is from someone who was there.

 

What is the young soldier's name?

The OP was based on the Drudge Report which in turn based its report on NBC News. NBC News has since revised its report. From the NY Sun link supplied by Bro. Curtis:

This is from someone who was there. </font>[/QUOTE]Which still doesn't prove there were weapons looted under the noses of the US military.

I saw the troop on Fox last night. He said they looked around and there wasn't this huge 370 tons of explosives to be found. He said they did look in the bunkers. They had no orders to do so but looked anyway.

Nothing was sealed when we arrived so either the explosives were removed before we got there or they were never there to begin with. Most likely they went to Syria in one of the many reported convoys spotted before the war began.

 

Daisy, I will email Fox News and see if I can get the young man's name. However, what Ballfan posted above is EXACTLY what someone that WAS there saw and stated. And he felt that what Kerry is saying is a personal attack on the troops. Just because it wasn't their mission to search the place, don't you think that they would want to check it out and make sure that there was no one there that would attack them.

It seems like there is conflicting reports on what happened there. You can believe what you wish to believe. It doesn't make it so!

 

Thanks.

Exactly? To get it exact from memory is better than I could do, most of the time. However, if there is a transcript, that would be most helpful. If there isn't, then it's hard to doublecheck, but that's the way it is sometimes.

Sometimes feelings get in the way of hearing what was actually said. I did not hear Kerry attack the troops at all, but the leadership - Rumsfeld & Bush. The leadership decides what is important (oil fields) and what is not. Kerry has lauded the troops. Dissing Bush is distinct from dissing the soldiers.

Yeah, but what has that to do with noting the whereabouts of the explosives and the seal?

I agree.

That's very kind of you to allow me that, Lorrie. So far, I don't know what to believe except that the explosives were certified there in January (the Bush admin knew that they were there) and gone missing by April and reported missing in October.

Nor does it make it not so! So?

 

Daisy, Here is what was on foxnews.com for Hannity and Colmes:

Wednesday, October 27:
A soldier who was at the now controvesial weapons facility in Iraq says he didn't see any explosives when he was there... We'll have an exclusive interview with Ken Dixon from the 101st Airborne's Second Brigade, Delta Company 503.

 

Daisy:

{QUOTE] That's very kind of you to allow me that, Lorrie. [/QUOTE]

I did not mean that it a derogatory fashion, Daisy. And you are right: it doesn't mean that they weren't there. Gee whiz...

Daisy:

I could not agree more!