Iraqi Gov and IAEA side with Kerry

[Ivan Seeking]

We didn't guard the nuclear facilities.
We didn't guard the foreign office, where you might have found information about weapons of mass destruction.
We didn't guard the borders.
The only building that was guarded when the troops went into Baghdad was the oil ministry.
--- (stated without objections or denials) John Kerry; Coral Gables Debate

In spite of Bush's efforts to sleaze his way out of this, his failure to run an intelligent war are showing clearly. This is what Kerry has been saying all along. All fingers are pointing at the same person - the only person responsible, not the soldiers or commanders in the field - Bush. It was his so called war plan. The soldiers only do what they're told.

Bush has failed miserably as Commander and Chief. He is a disgrace to this nation.

Obviously he skipped the part where you are supposed to secure the enemy's weapons and ammo as you advance.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The senior adviser to Iraq's Interior Ministry blamed U.S. forces Tuesday for not securing facilities where the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency says equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons has vanished.

...U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, playing down the International Atomic Energy Agency's concerns, said...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/12/iraq.nuclear/

VIENNA, Austria - Several hundred tons of conventional explosives were looted from a former Iraqi military facility that once played a key role in Saddam Hussein's efforts to build a nuclear bomb, the U.N. nuclear agency told the Security Council on Monday.

...The Iraqis told the nuclear agency the materials were stolen and looted because of a lack of security at governmental installations

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5049693.html

 

[kat]

and then Ivan said "let there be spin!"

Quite frankly I think that perhaps 99.9% of your post belong over in skepticism and debunking. Either that or both you and Kerry need to lay off the rum soaked white raisins. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2004/n10272004_2004102710.html

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27, 2004 – The chances that enemy forces moved 377 tons of heavy ordnance out of the Al Qaqaa arms facility after U.S. forces arrived in the area are nearly impossible, said Army Col. David Perkins, who commanded the American troops who took the area during major combat operations in Iraq in 2003.

Perkins commanded 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division. A unit under his command, the 3rd Battalion, 15th Infantry, entered the depot on April 3, 2003, and defeated the enemy forces there in a two-day battle.

The U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency had tagged the explosives at the site and departed before hostilities started. On May 27, 2003, experts with the 75th Exploitation Task Force confirmed the IAEA-sealed explosives were missing.

Perkins, now assigned to the Joint Staff, said it is "highly improbable" that the enemy was able to take the explosives out any time after U.S. forces arrived in the area. It would require "that the enemy sneaks a convoy of 10-ton trucks in and loads them up in the dark of night and infiltrates them in your convoy and moves out," he said. "That's kind of a stretch too far."

When his battalion arrived at Al Qaqaa April 3, it engaged several hundred enemy soldiers and the paramilitary Fedayeen Saddam in the area. The unit killed or captured all who were there, with the battle lasting through April 5.

"This site was open," Perkins said. "(Enemy) forces were moving in and out. We didn't know what was there."

At the same time, Perkins said, the soldiers of the unit did an initial assessment of the depot. "The concern was what's the capability of the munitions, rather than how much was there," he said

His soldiers concentrated on looking for weapons of mass destruction, especially chemical weapons. They found suspicious white powder and reported that through the chain of command. A chemical unit arrived, tested the powder and determined it was safe. The soldiers did not find the IAEA- sealed explosives

 

[plover]

"This site was open," Perkins said. "(Enemy) forces were moving in and out. We didn't know what was there." [emphasis added]

Well, why didn't they know what was there? Maybe information on the contents of every munitions dump in Iraq was not available, but the IAEA certainly knew what was in this one. And 370 tons of explosives that were dangerous enough that the IAEA felt it necessary to put the cache under seal sounds like a fairly good objective to order secured, and on which to obtain a status report detailing whether what was found at the site was what was known to be there.

I don't imagine there's anything to blame Col. Perkins for—I expect he carried out the orders he was given. But this site was an objective that could easily have been taken into account in planning. Why wasn't it?

 

[aeroegnr]

Hey Ivan if you're going to kneejerk every news article you come across you might as well note that just recently Matt Drudge posted info regarding Russia's involvement with moving said explosives into Syria.


Ahh...looks like the Washington Times also posted this here http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041027-101153-4822r.htm

 

[Tsu]

Quite frankly I think that perhaps 99.9% of your post belong over in skepticism and debunking. Either that or both you and Kerry need to lay off the rum soaked white raisins. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2004/n10272004_2004102710.html

Oh. Yeah. From a real UNBIASED site... Can you say "CYA"?

 

[kat]

Oh. Yeah. From a real UNBIASED site... Can you say "CYA"?

Yeah...I regard defense links to be held to a higher degree of accountability then www.lalalaland.com[/URL] but when it comes to politics who cares about accountability in the news as long as it's slanted to help your guy, eh? Of course, if you're interested there's also the information posted on the first (and perhaps second) thread he started on this subject.
Then again, with the some people having job security issues at the IAEA (directly related to the Bush Admin.)...one might think that anything coming out of the IAEA would be suspect...that is if they weren't so warped by their foam at the mouth bush hating kerry loving views to still be able to make an unbiased analysis. :bugeye: :eek:

 

[studentx]

I don't get it. The titel of this topic suggests the IAEUAI and Iraqi gov prefer Kerry. So why is this thread about something else?

 

[russ_watters]

I can't believe Kerry is still talking about this - he never learns, does he? He's going to get a hard lesson next week, and I'm not even sure he (or many of his supporters, for that matter) will understand why.