CBS was at it again. Reports are that the network was goping to "break" this story two days before the election. The NY Times pre-empted them and published it yesterday. Isn't it interesting that the next morning Kerry was already bashing Bush. Do you think he had inside info about this?

NBC had embedded reporters with the 101st Airborne when they captured Al Qacca, the location the UN had sealed that supposedly contained the munitions. While a complete search was allegedly not completed, a cache that large would presumably be pretty obvious to the casual observer.

Just like most of the conservatives out here....complain about the media instead of addressing a fairly critical issue. I wonder how safe our soldiers feel knowing that 380 tons of high explosive is in the wrong hands.

Just like an anon, total disregard for the truth of a story.

What isn't truthful? It is clear that a cache of high explosive is missing. 380 tons is the best estimate. So, what isn't truthful?

I don't usually join these conversations, BUT - the explosives disappeared sometime between March of 2003 when the UN labeled them and April of 2003 when our soldiers took the location from Saddam's soldiers who were defending that position. This is old news. It's been out there for over a year now. It is a known fact that a lot of weapons were smuggled out of Iraq or moved around by Saddam and his followers - at least as reported by both NBC & Fox last night. This isn't breaking news - it's old news. Why report it NOW unless it's politically motivated?

It isn't truthful that the U.S. had any control of these weapons before they were moved.

Kerry is saying that they disappeared after we had control of these weapons and that isn't the case, but he keeps saying it.

If people opposed to the war in Iraq believe Saddam (or his followers) was able to steal and hide 380 tons of explosives, why are those same individuals not able to concede the fact that he may have done the same with WMD? Isn't this a bit hypocritical? Everything that goes wrong is not Bush's fault.

Um, instead of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), would these be a mass of destructive weapons (MDW)?

Good one Nanwa!

Who truly believes that those weapons were there in April of '03 but our military personnel are so blind that they didn't see 760 1/2 ton Toyota pickup trucks full of weapons moving in and out of that site?

As NBC and Fox have both suggested, it's much more likely that they were moved by heavy trucks under the cover of darkness in the days leading up to the war.

You might also bear in mind that the same UN weapons inspectors who swear the munitions were there are the ones who swore Sadam had WMD's and would use them if invaded. There's an old saying in military circles that goes something like this . . . one soldier can look like an army if you move him around fast enough. Maybe Sadam was moving weapons around so we'd find the same weapons in multiple locations and assume he was much better armed than he was. It's kind of like telling someone you know karate in hopes they'll leave you alone. And it worked about that well!

Hannity interviewed a trooper from the 101st Airborne last night who actually walked through a number of these bunkers when they arrived there. There was no evidence of these explosives.

There's a shock!

Camera reporter shows film documenting explosives in bunker after the invasion on the TODAY Show this morning.

A Minneapolis news station (KSTP) had reporters with the 101st and are the crew that took the footage. The dates are clearly during March and April 2003. The footage shows all the bunkers, the explosives and bunkers that were sealed by some world atomic energy group. KSTP reported this morning that they had contacted someone from the 101st and the response was that their orders were to move on to Bagdad and not to secure the bunkers.

How could have they been moved prior to the invasion in Iraq when the footage is clearly dated?

Thanks SnowQueen, that is the report I saw as well.

(a) This is a very specific type of explosive. Are you sure the reporters are qualified to identify it?

(b) The IAEA report noted that the bunkers were equipped with ventillation grills, which could be removed, and through which the explosive material could be taken out(without breaking the seal). The most recent IAEA inspection at the site (March) didn't even verify that the explosive was there, only that the seals were still present.

(c) Do you realize how much material they are talking about? You don't sneak off with 300 metric tons of something. The military was all over that region, which is accessed by just two roads. And somehow a convoy of 30 or 40 semis was going to slip through? When the US was still looking for chemical and biological weapons stockpiles?

The most obvious explanation is that the explosives were moved prior to the invasion. But, thanks for trying to malign the judgment of the military commanders. You could at least mention that they have seized 400,000 metric tons of this stuff elsewhere.

The reporters, who are there with military personnel, show footage of many of the bunkers, they show the labels on the barrels, boxes and crates of explosives. All very identifiable information. This footage was taken while the reporters were imbedded with the 101st during and right after the Iraq invasion. The footage is clearly dated. How does it just magically disappear???? Someone screwed up!!!

Quote:

---

Someone screwed up

---

Clearly, someone, somewhere, did make a mistake. But rather than trying to decide what really happened, let's just blame it on Bush.

I am not blaming Bush. I do think he should say that they are doing a thorough investigation before he says that they were removed prior to the invasion. He blames Kerry for not knowing the facts when he apparently doesn't know the facts either.

Quote:

---

I do think he should say that they are doing a thorough investigation

---

This happened 18 months ago, don't you think they have already investigated it? I trust Bush's word over Kerry's (he says...as he make a chopping motion with his hand to emphasize his point)

What gives?

Isn't it ironic that nearly 420,000 tons of nuclear-detonating ammunition and war heads (in other words, weapons of mass-destructive capability) were in Iraq prior to the commencement of war, and that these powerful devices were under the direction of Saddam Hussein!

Isn't it puzzling that the U.N. weapons inspectors somehow overlooked this cache of 420,000 tons of mass-destructive weaponry?

Isn't it strange that Senator Kerry, the New York Times , CBS, ABC, the American Communist Party, The Islamic Jihad, and numerous other groups who insisted that the war in Iraq was baseless because there were NO weapons, are all now conceding that these ARE weapons with mass-destructive nuclear-detonating capabilities -- yet they are blaming George W. Bush for not somehow finding this weaponry earlier!

The oddity is that it was the President who suspected Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and it was the Senator who scoffed at the notion that any weapons existed. Now we know that there were 420,000 tons of massive-detonatable weaponry, yet the only discussion -- except from Drudge and other conservatives -- is how come the President didn't find them.

What about the weapons inspectors? What about the U.N.? What about John Edwards statement that there were never more weapons in Iraq that "could fill a shoe box"? What about Al Sharpton's statement at the DNC that the weapons of mass destruction theory was "all a big hoax."

Hello...

i guess you could say the weapons did a flip-flop.

Tell it to the thousands of American service men and women who have been maimed and mangled or the families of those sevice members who lost their lives in Iraq because of "Bush's War". Anyway, "we are talking about the man that tried to kill my Daddy!"