So, what about the OTHER 180,000 tons?

[Worst Username Ever]

Just asking. I mean, even if this spin story is true (unlikely), that still leave 180,000 tons of high explosives missing. Is that in itself not enough to be a pretty amazing story? Christ! 180,000 TONS!! How is the fact that they *might* have a soldier who can account for 200 of 380,000 tons even an acceptable excuse?

[Goldmund]

1. This story is so OBVIOUSLY not true.

If it were true, they would have come out with it on Monday, not after they were busted lying about the explosives not being there when the troops arived.

Also, if it is true, then why didn't the IAEA and the Iraqis know that?

This story is hillarious on its face.

[Tamyrlin79]

2. Do you mean "pounds"???

180,000 tons is a lot more than anybody is talking about... Do you mean 180,000 pounds?

200 of 380 tons, NOT 380,000...

Just say "no" right-winging it: Get your facts straight.

[JanMichael]

4. He meant tons, just without the additional "000", not pounds.

It was originally "377 tons of explosives".

[StClone]

3. Al Qa-Qaa is indicative of and overall problem

Do not let the Freeps get away with trying to diminish the fact that Bush did not plan adequately to protect hundreds of such sites indicated as priority sites by Inspectors. This is a planning fiasco. They had no idea about WMDs and this just adds weight to the fact this war was not built on facts.

[Oilwellian]

5. The one question to ask this guy

Why didn't he destroy ALL of the explosives?