Randy Barnhart – 11/1/04

This page was last updated on November 1, 2004.

Explosives were there; Randy Barnhart; Beaver County Times; November 1, 2004.

I wondered when someone in the anti-Bush crowd would go after the bait.

While the anti-Bush gang likes to claim this is a “Bush administration” failure, it’s really an attack on the military. After all, does anyone believe a civilian needs to tell a military commander to secure enemy munitions?

First, let’s put things in context. There were approximately 10,000 munitions dumps in Iraq. To date, coalition forces have destroyed and/or control over 400,000 tons of enemy explosives and munitions in Iraq. Of the type of interest in this case, there were approximately 250 tons. That’s 0.06%. That’s less than 1/1,500^th! The original reports indicated 377 tons, but we subsequently learned the actual amount inventoried by the IAEA in January 2003 was closer to 250 tons.

Second, folks like Mr. Barnhart want us to believe Iraqis looted the explosives after American troops took control of the area. This is highly improbable for several reasons.

· Before the war, satellite images showed heavy trucks at the Al-Qaqaa dump in the days before we attacked Iraq. There’s no way to know if these trucks removed any of the explosives in question, but that’s standard operating procedure for anyone who knows he’s about to be attacked.

· Some of the bunkers at Al-Qaqaa were bombed during the time before Baghdad fell.

· There was no “organized insurgency” at the time.

· It would take roughly 25 10-ton truckloads to move the explosives.

· If someone claims the “looters” used the pickup trucks used by many terrorists, that would require over 500 truckloads.

· There are only a couple of roads in the area and all were filled with American military vehicles and had military checkpoints.

· The area was under constant observation from the sky by unmanned aerial vehicles and by satellite.

· An Army major reported his team destroyed about 250 tons of explosives of the general type in question from the Al-Qaqaa dump. Including munitions from other dumps, the major indicated his team alone destroyed approximately 7,000 tons. That said, the major didn’t know if any of what his team destroyed were the specific explosives in question. Does this sound like the Army ignored enemy munitions?

Given the above facts, does anyone believe looters could have walked off with 250 tons of explosives after the Americans arrived? I guess anything is possible, but it sounds highly unlikely.

In any case, it’s clear the Army was addressing enemy munitions, as we would expect. Was the Army perfect in this task? I don’t know but I doubt it given how much weaponry was in Iraq and how far flung it was. If the story turns out to be true, are we to attack the Army because they weren’t perfect and missed 0.06% of the munitions they destroyed?

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“President Bush is countering charges that his administration allowed tons of explosives to get into the hands of the insurgents by claiming that there is no proof that they were there when U.S. troops arrived, and that John Kerry is wrong to blame the Bush administration.

“‘A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief,’ he said.”

[RWC] Mr. Barnhart should get his facts straight. Other than pointing out that a commander in chief should not jump to conclusions, President Bush has said nothing about the explosives. Unlike John Kerry, President Bush is letting the Pentagon gather the facts before he comments. President Bush never made the claim Mr. Barnhart attributes to him.

“The problem is that Channel 5 news (ABC) from Minneapolis Minn. had a news team ‘embedded’ with the 101st and has photos of members of the 101st inside the bunker and the material is there.

[RWC] It’s true the videotape shows explosives of the type in question, but none of the stories mentioned how much was found. That is, on the date in question, were there 250 tons or 2.5 tons? There’s another potential problem. A story said the reporter “had carefully rechecked the date on the cassette for his camera, adding that he was sure it was April 18, 2003.” The date may be correct, but is there proof?

“But Bush is right about jumping to conclusions. The ammunition was there, but the WMDs were never in Iraq and Bush should not be our commander-in-chief.”

[RWC] Can someone tell me why these folks so easily believe 250 tons of conventional explosives were spirited away by “looters” under the nose of the U.S. military but are unwilling to consider the possibility that WMD could have been spirited away before we arrived in Iraq?