Unfortunately, this news doesn’t seem too surprising: The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces, according to the Government Accountability Office. And there is good reason to believe that some of the weapons are being used by insurgents fighting U.S. forces.
"They really have no idea where they are," a defense analyst told the Washington Post. "It likely means that the United States is unintentionally providing weapons to bad actors."
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
71 Comments
According to Bush’s presidential declaration anyone hurting the war effort in Iraq can have their property seized. So when are they raiding Bush’s estate?
Funny how the Bush regime will blame Iran for providing weapons but we are allowed to do it. Nice double standard. When are we invading ourselves? Bush is a failure.
Doug, I believe the invasion date is set for October 2008, just after Bush declares martial law and postpones the November election.
Has there ever been a more incompetent administration than George WMD Bush’s? Ever?
Forget for a moment the whys and wherefores of Shrub’s little Iraqi adventure. This Pentagon (with help from mercinary contractors) has doled out 50,000 more assault weapons to the enemy than there are American soldiers in the Sandbox!
Oops!
If it was inadvertant, the people running this war are stupid beyond all redemption. If it was on purpose, the people running this war are traitors.
190,000 AK-47s provided to the enemy. I think that qualifies as “aid and comfort.” Don’t you?
I’ll bet a lot more U.S. trained Iraqis have killed Americans than Iranians.
It is hard to sustain a ‘war’ without well-armed enemies.
I bet it’s the media’s fault. If they hadn’t leaked this story, the terrorists would never know they had an additional 190,000 AKs for free.
Surely they are emboldened.
The rude pundit is on vacation this week, but one of his guest bloggers had a GREAT blog about these “lost” weapons. Scroll past the kos stuff.
http://www.rudepundit.blogspot.com/
“It is hard to sustain a ‘war’ without well-armed enemies.”
hehehehe! Yer on a roll today brian!
Hey, isnt counting guns what nathan does? Maybe he can explain this…
Nothing new here. We provided arms to the mujahadeen (Taliban and alQuada) in Afghanistan. We provided arms to Saddam. We provided arms to Iran under the Shah. And now all of these.
We have also been arming Sunni militias in Anbar. How long until those are also turned on us?
You’re doing a heckuva job Bushie!
From the linked article in the “lead off” to this thread, it is stated that there were well-established procedures to be followed in cases such as these, which were ignored as the Pentagon wanted “flexibility”. It seems the procedures were, in the past (Bosnia, for example, as I recall) developed and implemented by the State Department. The idea of handing weapons and body armor to Iraqi troops just heading into battle without accounting therefor sends shivers down my spine.
There is a “justification” given within said piece that there weren’t sufficient troops to do it the right way (my words), which again calls into question the degree to which any post-invasion plans were developed and implemented.
It is hard to sustain a ‘war’ without well-armed enemies.
Posted by: brian | August 07, 2007 at 01:21 PM
True dat Bri. True dat…
Brian,”I believe the invasion date is set for October 2008, just after Bush declares martial law and postpones the November election.”
In order for that to happen, we’re going to need a truly major terrorist event. Is that why Osama is still alive and uncaught?
And the bad guys have 190,000 new toys to play with?
Doug, I believe the invasion date is set for October 2008, just after Bush declares martial law and postpones the November election.
Posted by: brian | August 07, 2007 at 01:14 PM
Oh come on. I heard the same thing when Clinton was President. Didn;t believe it then, don;t believe it now.
However, should any such attempt be made, believe this:I will be happy to support any organization that would bring about a return to constitutional rule with time, money, talent, and bullets.
LJ. RON PAUL 2008
Does constitutional rule include requiring the President and his aides to appear before Congress under oath?
Of course not leftcoaster.It is easier to talk big than to prevent problems from happening.
Does constitutional rule include requiring the President and his aides to appear before Congress under oath?
Posted by: leftcoaster | August 07, 2007 at 02:45 PM
Depends on the circumstance, I suppose. Executive priviledge is a recognized LEGAL concern. Separation of powers and all that. ANd there is that damned 5th amendment thing. Something about not incriminating oneself. I guess I would have to defer to the Supreme Court, whatever their decsion.
” is easier to talk big than to prevent problems from happening.
Posted by: brian | August 07, 2007 at 02:49 PM
Not talk. Nor speculation. Fact.
Used to be when a soldier in Vietnam lost his weapon, he would be considered for court martial.
And as I recall, have to pay for that damn thing. Same should go here.
ANY ONE OF YOU REMEMBER BILL CLINTON
Yes, I remember Bill Clinton. That was back when gasoline was on average $1.25/gallon and I can remember when it actually dropped below $1/gallon on a few occasions.
Let’s see, he also proposed a national healthcare plan that was axed by the opposition party.
Look at the state of affairs today and weep.
Clinton lowered the number of people on welfare and balanced the budget. As I remember, people actually prospered during his administration. Wow, I guess those were the bad ‘ole days considering how well things are going under W’s watch.Why is it that everytime someone points out the negative about this administration (and there is more than enough to bitch about), some bushie brings up Bill Clinton? How the hell can you even COMPARE the two? What morons!
“I will be happy to support any organization that would bring about a return to constitutional rule with time, money, talent, and bullets.Posted by: littlejohn | August 07, 2007 at 02:30 PM ”
“Not talk. Nor speculation. Fact.
Posted by: littlejohn | August 07, 2007 at 02:56 PM”
So you do support removing the current president from office?
I support the Constitution of the United States. If our current president has comitted High crimes and misdeanors, impeach him. If found guilty, he should be removed from office. If he were to refuse, i would support removing him from office by whatever means necessary. That clear enough for you?
“Executive priviledge is a recognized LEGAL concern. Separation of powers and all that. ANd there is that damned 5th amendment thing.”
Invoking executive privilege may be a recognized legal concern, but it does circumvent the recognized system of check and balances created as part of the separation of powers.
A person subpoenaed to testify before Congress must do so, regardless of the Fifth Amendment. Once they are there, they may invoke their right not to incriminate themselves, but deciding not to appear would be an illegal act.
The minute it was reported that our Army could not find those arms supplied to the Iraqis, we all knew those guns were killing Americans.
A person subpoenaed to testify before Congress must do so, regardless of the Fifth Amendment. Once they are there, they may invoke their right not to incriminate themselves, but deciding not to appear would be an illegal act.
Posted by: brian | August 07, 2007 at 03:30 PM
You are most likely correct. And I argued so about harriet Meirs and others. She should have went. Even exutive priveledge probably doesn;t apply, she is no longer a government official. Charge her with contempt of Congress. That is the case for most mere mortals. Whether it is actually true for the Pres and COngress, I am not sure.
Q: How do we go about determining if he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors?A: A member of the House must introduce a resolution to impeach to be presented to the Judiciary Committee. The charges will then be investigated and a decision whether to file Articles of Impeachment will be made.
I don’t know whether the Pres himself would have to appear. I am curious about that now, and will see if I can find any info.
“Invoking executive privilege may be a recognized legal concern, but it does circumvent the recognized system of check and balances created as part of the separation of powers.”
I agree, however,
i would guess that the evidence would have to come from somewhere else, as is the case in most trials?
Meanwhile, more MISSION ACCOMPLISHED in the Iraqi “government” (sic)
Iraqi government unraveling as more ministers boycottBy Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Mon, August 6, 2007 email | print tool nameclose
tool goes here
BAGHDAD — Iraq’s government, already unable to reconcile rival Sunni and Shiite Muslim factions, seemed headed for complete paralysis Monday as five more Cabinet ministers announced that they’d boycott government meetings.
If the ministers from the secular Iraqiya political list hold to their decision, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki will be unable to convene a quorum of the council of ministers to approve legislation or take other action weeks before U.S. officials are to make a crucial mid-September assessment of the success or failure of American policy here.
U.S. officials said they’d have no immediate comment. “Things change here by the hour,” U.S. Embassy spokesman Phil Reeker said in an e-mail.
In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack issued a lukewarm statement of support for Maliki, in contrast to earlier ringing endorsements from President Bush.
“There’s a very healthy political debate that’s going on in Iraq, and that’s good,” McCormack said. “It’s going to be for them (the Iraqis) to make the judgments about whether or not that government is performing.”
Without action by Maliki’s government, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and military commander Army Gen. David Petraeus are unlikely to be able to tell Congress that Iraq is making progress on key political fronts. A mid-July assessment painted a bleak picture of the chances for Iraqi political reconciliation.
“The situation is very fragile,” said Hajim al Hassani, an Iraqiya member of parliament.
The Iraqiya ministers’ decision to skip government meetings brings to 17 the number of ministers who’ve left the government or suspended their participation in it.
Last week, six members of the Sunni Accordance Front quit, saying that Maliki, a Shiite, had ignored 12 demands, including that he stop the infiltration of the country’s security services by members of Shiite militias. That followed a decision in April by six ministers loyal to Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr to leave, saying Maliki had failed to insist on a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal.
The Iraqiya faction in parliament is led by Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite whom American officials had appointed as Iraq’s prime minister when the U.S. dissolved the Coalition Provisional Authority, which had governed Iraq for the first 14 months after Saddam Hussein’s ouster.
Hassani called the boycott the “first step toward withdrawal.”
“They are not happy with the performance of the government,” Hassani said. “The main point is trying to pressure and try to force the government to do some reforms and present some services to the people. Of course, the parliament is not meeting and the prime minister can’t do anything unless the parliament comes back.”
President Bush ordered another 28,000 troops to Iraq in January, arguing that a military crackdown might cut violence and allow reconciliation between Sunni and Shiite politicians over key issues.
But in spite of the U.S. troop surge, there have been no steps toward reconciliation. Shiite militias have continued to force Sunni residents from their neighborhoods in Baghdad, and parliament has taken no action on a range of legislation intended to ease tensions, including setting rules for hiring former members of Saddam’s Baath party in government positions.
With Iraq’s parliament on vacation until September, American officials had resigned themselves to no progress on the congressionally established benchmarks. Now, action is unlikely even when parliament returns, since Iraq’s constitution requires that the council of ministers approve all legislation first.
Meanwhile, Crocker met Monday for the third time with his Iranian counterpart, Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi, to discuss security concerns.
The meeting, which lasted about two hours, came as a joint U.S.-Iranian-Iraqi committee held its first meeting on security issues. Embassy spokesman Reeker said that meeting lasted four hours and was “frank and serious.”
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said the meeting focused on dealing with al Qaida in Iraq, a Sunni extremist group that’s thought to be behind some of the most spectacular attacks in Iraq. The embassy’s counselor for political and military affairs, Marcie B. Ries, the former U.S. ambassador to Albania, led the U.S. delegation.
IRNA, Iran’s official news agency, said the Iranian delegation had accused the U.S. of “intentional support for notorious elements and giving terrorists a free hand in certain parts of Iraq.”
The news agency didn’t offer specifics, but the Maliki government has complained about recent U.S. support for Sunni insurgents who’ve agreed to turn against al Qaida in Iraq but remain opposed to the Shiite-led Iraqi government.
McClatchy Newspapers 2007
brian, research away, but it is a principle of the Separation of Powers that a President is not subject to the subpoena of a congressional committee. The only possible requirement I can think of in the Constitution of a President’s appearing before Congress is the State of the Union report, which is really a matter of custom rather than requirement. It is my recollection that George Washington sent a written report to the Congress on the State of the Union, a practice followed by his successors for quite a period of time. Even then, as a formality, the President must be “invited” to deliver the State of the Union address, it being recognized that he otherwise has no business being there.
On the issue of the appearance of the President before the Senate in a trial following impeachment, IIRC, none of the impeached presidents have appeared personally. Again, it isn’t required.
They can’t get their poop in a group? they are on vacation for a month?
Get on the plane boys. Time to come home.
Bet if they had to hadle security on their own they wouldn’t be on vacation right now.
What motivation do they have when it is US troops taking the bulets and bombs?
C’mon home boys. C’mon home.
I’m just glad they were ak 47’s, can you imagine what the lib MSM would do if we were losing troops with m16 bullets in them!
I suspect there will be yet another Congressional Oversight Hearing.
I would agree that their should be one. Weapon discipline and keeping track of arms is one of the first thing any military person learns.
This is basic stuff and the loss of that much material should have never happened.
Probably alot of them ended up here- sent back in pieces by soldiers.
While I think impeachment is a waste of time and would probably hurt the Democrats, I do think that once Bush is gone we need a very agressive Special Prosecutor appointed to look into the crimes of this bunch and bring them to justice.
Kev,
That would be hard to do since all mail is screened and x-rayed.
On top of that, it is not our soldiers who lost them. These weapons were given to the IRaqi’s and then unaccounted for if I understand correctly.
Are we even surprised anymore at all? Seriously? Didn’t we just offer to supply Saudi with arms as well?
I don’t know why we just don’t start every headline now with Bush’s corrupt and incompetent news o’ the minute.
Kev – I like that idea – especially if it is AFTER BushDaBum is out of office and cannot issue another pardon.
“While I think impeachment is a waste of time and would probably hurt the Democrats”
Truth is never a waste of time, and not doing it because it would probably hurt the Democrats is just another way of saying, politics over justice.
If it’s worth doing, do it now. If it’s not, forget about afterwards, it’s not worth it then either.
I think that pardon pen will be very, very busy the morning of January 19, 2009.
lj – sometimes it is a matter of priorities. I have several things I would like to do this evening but can only do some of them. So, I do triage.
Same with impeachment. It owuld distract from other pressing business; especially while trying to sort out Bush’s isiotic war. So, it gets deferred.
Cut-off the funding today
{ if you’re serious about saving our soldier’s lives }.
The American People are behind you, as is the rest of the world { with the usual exceptions }.
BOO!
JUST KIDDING…
Negraponte went in first, gave the Shiites the nod for “the El Salvador solution” then gave them weapons and hand drills, and they went after the Sunnis with a vengeance.
Someone else went in, armed the Sunnis with weapons, ostenSibly to go after Al Queda…
Like the old economic models are no longer reliable, the old rules of warfare are no longer valid.
We had better get used to “the enemy of my enemy is my enemy.”
But maybe we should stop arming them? Or is this the last bad act of the war profiteers, knowing that either the Iraqis are going to ask us to leave soon, or Congress is going to force Bush’s hand, so they are dumping their stock while they have a chance.
No matter who is the target of those weapons.
Bad enough our soldiers are there in the first place, now our porfiteers are selling the weapons to the Iraqis who want to kill them.
“If it’s worth doing, do it now. If it’s not, forget about afterwards, it’s not worth it then either.”
LJ, we are going to disagree again, but this time I won’t use any bad words…
I actually think that anything we do “now” in terms of actual prosecution would be futile until Bush The Grand Pardoner has relinquished his pardon pen.
And since when does truth have an expiration date.
Waiting until the next Congress would also provide us with some more center-right candidates where the right-wing Democratic Party bluedogs are now, and a much larger majority in both the House and the Senate, so this obstructionism just could not happen.
Waiting for Bush to be gone before we actually indict some of them would certainly assure that justice is much more likely to be served.
Hot or cold, Justice doesn’t care, sometimes the colder the better, especially when the President is obviously so willing to pardon his bubbas, flouting the rule of law.
I personally don’t care when it happens or how it happens, but there are still billions of dollars in no-bid corruption and conspiracy scenarios galore, that some people would surely like to see us all forget with the passing of time.
I, for one, don’t intend to forget.
actually think that anything we do “now” in terms of actual prosecution would be futile until Bush The Grand Pardoner has relinquished his pardon pen.
He can’t pardon himself. I think the poster who worried about it hurting the dems was teh reason it won;t happen. ALways, no matter which party, politics over truth.They are only concerned with either getting power, or keeping it. The rest is just a means to the end. THEIR political muscle.
“but there are still billions of dollars in no-bid corruption and conspiracy scenarios galore, that some people would surely like to see us all forget with the passing of time.”
Also, see nancy Pelosi scandal(or should I say, (alleged).
I am all for full disclosure, and full investigation. Now, not later.If Bush is as evil as posted here, he needs to be stopped NOW, before any more damage can be done. But, gven the vote on the FISA stuff, Dems have no backbone either. Polticss, including rhetoric, ove substance. Every time. Every party
Littlejohn,
He certainly can pardon himself. Would it be wise? No, but he can do it.
Same with impeachment. It owuld distract from other pressing business; especially while trying to sort out Bush’s isiotic war. So, it gets deferred.
Posted by: Ben | August 07, 2007 at 04:54 PM
Ben-
If he is as evil a portrayed, he needs to be stopped now. That should be the HIGHEST priority. IMHO
Littlejohn,
He certainly can pardon himself. Would it be wise? No, but he can do it.
Posted by: Tom | August 07, 2007 at 07:28 PM
Really? I guess I am not aware of that. Interesting thought, but I really question that it is true. Not your veracity, just your information. But hell, in politics, anything is possible
Littlejohn,
The Constitution only limits the Presidential pardon on impeachment. If he gets impeached, no pardon.
“He can’t pardon himself.”
…you need to research that a bit better…
Ford pardoned Nixon because Nixon was no longer President, but unless I am mistaken, Bush CAN pardon himself.
However, one thing he can not do is pardon someone who has not been convicted…
Which is why I see some serious strategic logic in holding out until the 111th.
Anyone who has been convicted Bush can pardon, but he can’t pardon someone who hasn’t been convicted.
Here’s the skinny on self-pardon, apparently it would require a very self-important president to do the deed, but that is just what we got.
By the way, before anyone even tries CLINTON DIDN’T CONSIDER HIMSELF ABOVE THE LAW, he refused to consider a self-pardon even if they had removed him from office.
But I don’t think a Bush impeachment is nearly as likely as a Cheny impeachment, and if the Dems are smart they will stretch it out right up until election time, exposing all the sordid little details, letting The Man twist in the wind, right along with Rudy McRomson.
August 1, 1974. As Richard Nixon’s presidency rapidly neared its end, his aides outlined his options. One possibility discussed was for Nixon to pardon himself and then resign. His lawyers prepared a short memorandum concluding that a self-pardon would be legal.(1) Nevertheless, Nixon decided against a self-pardon, resigned, and left his fate in the hands of President Gerald Ford.(2)
Christmas Eve 1992. President George Bush had lost his bid for reelection and would be in office for only one more month. Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh had persisted in his pursuit of Iran-Contra suspects. Bush decided to pardon several of them, leaving himself as the most prominent prosecutable figure.(3) Several commentators speculated that Bush might pardon himself for his role in the scandal, and many assumed that such an act would be valid.(4) One stated, “[F]or a president to pardon himself would, admittedly, be an act of unprecedented chutzpah, but the Constitution does not forbid it, containing nothing that circumscribes the power . . . .”(5) Others disagreed, including Walsh and his staff.(6) As one commentator wrote. “We have not recognized the power of a president . . . to pardon himself. On the contrary, one of the most fundamental principles of justice is that a person shall not sit in judgment of himself.”(7) In the end, like Nixon, Bush did not pardon himself. His gamble paid off; he was not indicted.(8)
I. The Pardon Power
So, which of those legal expert was right?
I can’t say for sure, Tom you may be right, I was remembering the GHWBush situation and that Nixon had actually considered it…but it seems like uncertain territory, really.
There is certainly no precedent…
JEP,
The Presidential pardon covers “offenses against the United States.” There’s no conviction requirement in the Constitution, and Presidential pardons have been issued for people who have not been convicted or charged.
A notable pre-conviction pardon was issued by GHW Bush for Cap Weinberger in the late 80s
Scratch “late 80s.” Weinberger was pardoned in 92.
“I think that pardon pen will be very, very busy the morning of January 19, 2009.”
I don’t think he can pardon people for crimes which they have not been accused of yet. I may be wrong but I have never heard of a pardon for “crimes he may have committed while in office”
Interesting. WHile the jury (or the legal eagles) seems to be still out, It seems there is that possiblity. I would never have thought so.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
Kev,
Key words in Ford’s pardon of Nixon: “or may have committed”
Kev,”While I think impeachment is a waste of time and would probably hurt the Democrats, I do think that once Bush is gone we need a very agressive Special Prosecutor appointed to look into the crimes of this bunch and bring them to justice.”
Why bother? As the final application of the Bush (so-called)Patriot Act before it’s revoked, we could strip Bush & Co. of their U.S. citizenship and hand them over to the World Court for disposition. No muss, no fuss.
Do you think Americans would be so stupid as to give guns that worked to the enemy?
Grafitti Troll–
Just when you think BushCo can’t get any stupider, they do something stupider.
This is the man that watched an American city sink beneath the waves of a Biblical flood and said that his emergency director was doing “a heck of a job.”
James,”Do you think Americans would be so stupid as to give guns that worked to the enemy?”
Apparently that’s exactly what clueless American officials have been doing.
James, do you think Americans would be so stupid as to invade a country with no plan for the occupation? To start a civil war and then deny it exists?
Here’s the plan to fight terrorism:
Step 1: Invade a country, bomb it, shoot up the cities.
Step 2: Pour weapons and ammunition into the hands of that nation’s citizens.
Step 3: Sit back and wait for the accolades.
Brilliant! No wonder Republicans think Bush is so smart.
Biblical flood
Posted by: CapnAmerica
Was Katrina in the bible?
Or did you leave a word out?
E,I think the phrase was “a flood of Biblical proportions.” Cap’n just shortened it a bit.
“Do you think Americans would be so stupid as to give guns that worked to the enemy?”
The AK-47 is one of the best rifles ever made. If any gun works, an AK does. The AK was made by Russia and I guess it still is but during Veitnam even Americans admitted it was superior to the M-16 we had because it did not tend to jam like the M-16 did. In fact American soldiers used to take AKs off the dead enemy and use them instead of the M-16 because they were a reliable gun.
The AK has more stopping power and is more reliable in adverse conditions. The inventor used to brag that you could pour fistfulls of sand into the receiver and still fire a full clip. The advantage of the M-16 and M-4 is its light weight and smaller cartridge.