Talk Elections

Latest breaking is at the bottom


Article here with pictures:

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

Here's a video link:

http://kstp.dayport.com/viewer/content/special.php?Art_ID=159660&Format_ID=2&BitRate_ID=8&Contract_ID=712&Obj_ID=3


()

Updated:
New article
http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=1

Seal:
()

It being removed:

()

Updated again thanks to ABC:

IAEA warned US about site:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=206262

and the jackpot from former weapons inspectors:

[/b]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847

You really need to learn to read the entire story.

Here is the final paragraph:

"On Wednesday, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS e-mailed still images of the footage taken at the site to experts in Washington to see if the items captured on tape are the same kind of high explosives that went missing in Al Qaqaa. Those experts could not make that determination. .

Your bust just went bust!

There's proof that we left explosives unsecured in that area. WTF more do you want?

Obviously for you give intelligent and honest answers, but that's asking too much.  You did ask.

There were a huge amounts of explosives and other weapons in the country.  The 360 tons was less that 0.1% of all that has been recovered.  All of it cannot be secured, which is an accurate statement about the aftermath of any.

The more you post on this the more it show your lack of comprehesion of how much material the US is dealing with.

These are explosives that the IAEA has been monitoring.

The 360 tons were high power explosives, less than 1 pound of the same stuff took down Pan Am Flight 103.

We left the explosives that this story is reporting on unsecured, and now they are gone. Do you seem a problem with that?

Well, first of all, I'd like to it these were the same seals that were on the buildings housing, at one point, the explosives.  Second, I'd like to know if later, after the invasion, these are not pictures of the troops breaking the seals to destoy the explosives.  Third, I'd like to know if this was the only way into or out of the building.

A photo of seal really doesn't say very much.

Yes, The seals were on the buildings.
The troops broke the seals, and then left the explosives unsecured.
I'd assume that was the only entrance.
You might consider watching the video.

Here is what the story really says:

A 5 Eyewitness News crew in Iraq may have been just a door away from materials that could be used to detonate nuclear weapons. The evidence is in videotape shot by Reporter Dean Staley and Photographer Joe Caffrey at or near the Al Qaqaa munitions facility.

The video shows a cable locking a door shut. That cable is connected by a copper colored seal.

A spokesperson for the International Atomic Energy Agency told 5 Eyewitness News that seal appears to be one used by their inspectors. "In Iraq they were used when there was a concern that this could have a, what we call, dual use purpose, that there could be a nuclear weapons application."

5 Eyewitness News continues to develop new leads and uncover new developments in this story.

We have no idea what was in there and if this was being removed.

Did you see the 2nd article?
The first acticle verifies that explosives were left unsecured by US troops at the site.

lmao. Why does this matter?

Anti-American forces with lots of IAEA monitored explosives. Who cares? LOL!!!!!!!!

Oh, I get it. You're saying Saddam Hussein was a threat to our national security.

Saddam wasn't a threat to us as long as we didn't have troops in Iraq.

Saddam could have passed these weapons on to terrorists anytime he wanted.

What the hell does this have to do with Bush? You're basically b*tching at the troops.

Huh, interesting tape.  It said that the bunker was within the US Army parameter and the explosives "may or may not" be the ones in question.  That reall definitive Jfool. 

I don't want accuse you being a troll, but clearly your ability to understand English is in question.

They weren't given orders to secure the site. I blame the higher ups, not the rank and file.

Presidents don't micromanage military operations. The idea that Bush is responsible for this is absolute idiocy.

Interestingly, the tape was made on April 18.  The site was ininspected, and found looted, on May 8, 20 days.

Now, forgetting for a moment that the bunkers were within US bases, that give the looters 20 days to loot 360 tons of explosives and drive it past or through a brigade of Airborne and down a road filled with US Army vehicles!   That is absolutely brilliant jfool.

HMX was seen there April 18th.
A typcal frieght canister could have held most of it.
380 tons is only 10 meters by 10 meters by 20 meters.
They only had to move 20 tons a day, or regular truckload.

Perhaps, in the case shown on the videotape, because it was in the perimeter of the US Forces?

If jfern tripped and fell, he would blame it on George Bush.

What?

If you didn't understand, it's probably because of George Bush

First the estimate is that it would be 40 truckloads to move 360 tons or 9 tons per truckload; this once again proves that jfool cannot do math.  Second, the news story is quite clear that they didn't know what it is.  Third, you still have the problem of trying drive past or though a brigade of Airborne onto a road crowded with Army vechicles.

It just proves you're using smaller trucks. Yawn.
The weapons inspectors say that it was HMX. You might want to read the updated part. It's over for Bush.

Jfool according to the tape, the bunker that was videotaped was within the security perimeter of the US incampment.  Maybe you need to pay attention when you watch the video tape.

GPS put it at right by the facility. And there's those IAEA seals, and explosives that appear to be HMX.

Keep spinning.

Let me try to dumb this down for you.  If each truck can carry 9 tons, and they make one trip per day, it takes 40 days to move the explosives.  There was a 20 day period between the video tape and when the army did the inspection.

They still have the problem of doing it, within the perimeter of a Brigade of Airborne.  After 10 or 15 trips, somebody will notice something.

The area was NOT SECURED.  So 2 of your smaller trucks per day. Whatever.

Why should I have to explain how they might have been taken after we confirmed they were still there?

As you pointed out the facility was large; neither the newscrew nor the soldiers identifuied it as such.  Of course, you can, jfool, from a grainy internet video, right?  Because of all your experience with UN, right jfool?

You Dudge bust is a bust and we are all laughing at you.  Soon we all be laughing at Kerry.

WEAPONS INSPECTERS IDENTIFIED IT

You just won't admit defeat. Yawn.

Well, the area is within the defensive perimeter of a brigade of the 101st Airborne, according to the video.  So, it really is in a relatively secure place.  

So now you have two trucks, "whatever," going into the perimeter, daily for 20 days, of an encampment of elements of the 101st Airborne.  Then after taking time to load up the trucks, they drive down the road loaded with American convoys.  That really makes sense, jfool.

No they didn't; that's the problem.  They did identify a seal, not what was for.  We also have all of this happening within the parimeter of an encampment of US forces.

They say HMX

You guys are just spinning

The HMX was there.
Than Sadam moved it before we got there.
No Russia moved it to Syria
The HMX wasn't there when the troops get there
But the HMX was there.
US troops opened some of the seals.
intelligence knew about it they didn't tell their military counterparts or conversly the military counterparts didn't do anything.
There were 500 other sites like this.
Bush was told to go in with overwhelming force.  Why to secure the weapons and the bases.
Bush's team decided to go in with less forces than needed.

The terrorists are more terrorists today then there were 4 years ago.

The terrorists are better armed today than they were 4 years ago.

And I blame the president.  And had this happend during a democratic presidency I would have blamed the president too.  can't you detach yourself from your party for a second and see how ed up this is.

Former weapons inspector says he can't say that it was HMX on the tape, on CNN right now.

Pentagon released a satellite photo of trucks around the bunkers from before the war but after the last inspection. 

You run into the logistical problems of taking these out of the area after the Americans arrive.

There is circumstancial evidence that the explosives were not there.  I've noticed that you cannot show how the explosives could have been removed, all 360 tons of it.

I'll be perfectly free to admit that some explosives could have been taken, if they were there.  You need proof that they were there at the time the US Army showed up.

Likely HMX
Definitely stuff the IAEA was guarding
And we left it unsecured

Maybe it won't convince you, but it will convince enough reasonable people that Bush is doomed.

They could not identify it as HMX, and they still have not been clear about the seal.

No, please explain how 360 tons of explosive were removed when the roads were filled with American vehicles?  The story goes bust if you can't.  Kerry will still probably lose if you can.

We didn't have the area guarded at all for 20 days. Why should I have to explain exactly how they went into an unguarded area, and went into unlocked buildings and removed the explosives shown in that video?

First, determine if there was something there to guard.  You have to explain it because you have claimed it.  You are claiming that it was looted in a 20 day period.  Okay, how?

I frankly, from reading you posts, would bet that you coundn't.

One can easily come up with a reasonable scenario of how it was done, but why bother with this speculation. It was there and now it's gone. I don't have to prove anything.

Wow if Bush only had the integriaty and the intelectual honesty that you do JJ when he told America that Sadam had weapons of mass distruction.  We would have never gone to war.

No, I thought there were WMD's there, and I was wrong. 

I would however like you to answer the question, even using circumstancial evidence.  So far, you have not been to.  I challenge you to do so.

One day:
20 reasonably size trucks
100 people

I think it's 380 regular tons, or 350 metric tons.
17.5 tons or 35,000 pounds per truck
Each person moves 90 pounds at a time, 400 loads, or 80 loads per person. The trucks are put right next to the storage area.

Maybe all done at night?

jfern i think he wants specifics. 
Names of the people that moved the explosives.
The license places on the cars.
when they clocked in clocked out etc.

The group portrait after they finished loading the last truck full.

We didn't have our head in the game and we lost the explosives.  PERIOD.  Whoops

Nobody's going to notice a convoy of twenty trucks rolling down the roads occupied and being used by the US Army?  They are doing the loading next to an encampment of the 101 Airborne?

And to khirknib, I want you to honestly back up you claims.  Jfern is at least trying here.

Why don't you explain to me what happened to the explosives in that video?

For all either of us know they have been collected and destoyed.

Now, why don't you answer my question.  If the HMX was there, how was it looted?  Answer the question, if you can.  I'm challenging you.

have the interviews with the 101st troops been completely discounted?  I haven't heard any more about them.  Has the expectation od an OCTOBEr surprise already been factored into voters minds?  How many undecided voters could there be?  No DEmos or Repubs will be swayed.

If there was really a plausible story, e.g. 4-5 tons were missing, it would be damaging, and their wouldn't be any circumstancial evidence.  Whoever planted the story blew it with the 360 metric tons[/b] part.

If you're goning to lie, make it a believable lie.

Are these Ministry of Science Iraqis former Bathist Party members?  360 tons vs. 3 tons.  Even the IEA UN papers say there was possibly only 3 tons.  Who to believe.

Three tons is possible.  It could be removed in a few days. 

The details have not yet come out.  That creates a problem for Kerry obviously.  He has to stick to the 360 tons unless he wants to look stupid and having incredibly bad judgment, dishonest, or a flipflopper.

j.j....I have probably missed it in the news but who has actually been at the site in the last 18 months?  Iraqis?  US?  Who has inventoried the site lately?

Nobody.  :-)

What we know is that inspectors saw and sealed it in Jan. 2003, that the inspectors saw the seal in early March, and that it wasn't there on May 8, 2004.  The US Army got there in early April, I think.

There is a video recorded on April 18, 2003, that jfool makes much that shows, well something.  The news crew that made the tape, and the inspectors, have not been able to confirm that this showed the explosives in question, HMX.

If it is the explosives in question, they would have to have been stolen over the 20 days between the taping and the Army inspection.  It's exceptionally hard to move 360 metric tones, roughly 794,000 pounds, in 20 days.  Because of that, and because there is circumstancial evidence, i.e. there were truck there just before the war, it's unikely to be true.

3 metric tons could have been moved, fairly easily, within those 20 days.

Damn those flip-floppers who are against a 9/11 commission and then for it, against a Dept. of Homeland security and then for it, against civil unions, and then for it......

Hey, of always said the problem here is trying to explain how 360 metric tons were moved.  It's a lot easier with 3 metric tons; you don't run into the same problem.  Ah, that, BTW, is called intellectual honesty.

Kerry overplayed it by latching on to the 360 metric tons figure.  If he would have said some or part, he wouldn't be having this problem.

There have been a lot of U.S troops in that area since it fell.  It is extremely difficult to believe that a bunch of people in big trucks could just pull up to this site and load up 360 tons of ANYTHING without U.S. forces falling in on them.

The little video by that TV station shows so little that no definitive determination can be made by it.  It is silly to say otherwise.

It looks like the whole country was a giant ammo dump and thank God we have captured most of it.  Sounds like a great job by our troops.

Bingo!  I could very easily believe that several tons could be taken out over 20 days.  That would be plausible, though there isn't any proof.  It's the weight that runs into into the problem.  Too much, 360 tons, in too little time, 20 days. 

You also have to factor in:

1.  That the area where the video tape was shot was within the defensive perimeter of a brigade of the 101 Airborne. 

2.  The roads in and out of the area were being used continiously by the US Army.

It would next to impossible to get large trucks into or out of the site in those conditions.

You also have evidence, satellite imaging does show trucks by those bunkers, after the last inspection but before the US troops arrived.  It's not proof, but it is circumstantial evidence that the explosives were moved prior to the US showing up.

Those people suggesting that the explosives were still there can only spin and can't explain away this evidence.

just read that the Iraqis are saying that maybe the stuff was gone before we got there....mas later

Sorry all, long doctoral dissertation here.

We have the original ABC News report:

Oct. 28, 2004 — The strongest evidence to date indicates that conventional explosives missing from Iraq's Al-Qaqaa installation disappeared after the United States had taken control of Iraq.
Barrels inside the Al-Qaqaa facility appear on videotape shot by ABC television affiliate KSTP of St. Paul, Minn., which had a crew embedded with the 101st Airborne Division when it passed through Al-Qaqaa on April 18, 2003 — nine days after Baghdad fell.
Experts who have studied the images say the barrels on the tape contain the high explosive HMX, and the universal markings on the barrels are clear that these are highly dangerous explosives.
"I talked to a former inspector who's a colleague of mine, and he confirmed that, indeed, these pictures look just like what he remembers seeing inside those bunkers," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.
The barrels were found inside sealed bunkers, which American soldiers are seen on the videotape cutting through. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency sealed the bunkers where the explosives were kept just before the war began.
"The seal's critical," Albright said. "The fact that there's a photo of what looks like an IAEA seal means that what's behind those doors is HMX. They only sealed bunkers that had HMX in them."
After the bunkers were opened, the 101st was not ordered to secure the facility. A senior officer told ABC News the division would not have had nearly enough soldiers to do so.
It remains unclear how much HMX was at the facility, but what does seem clear is that the U.S. military opened the bunkers at Al-Qaqaa and left them unguarded. Since then, the material has disappeared
Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita said it's not clear what the photos indicate.
"We know there were other units in the area who acknowledged finding explosives," he said. "Some Explosive Ordnance Destruction units have a recollection that some high explosives in the area were taken out of there."
DiRita said the Pentagon is trying to contact the units of the 101st Airborne Division that may have been involved in the opening of these bunkers to get a better sense of what happened.

And their follow up report:
Oct. 28, 2004 -- A Minnesota television station news crew reporting from Iraq in the spring of 2003 came very close to the spot where tons of high explosives are alleged to have disappeared.
Based on GPS data and confirmation from officials of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division, KSTP-TV 5 Eyewitness News determined its crew was on or near the southern edge of the Al-Qaqaa installation on April 18, 2003, nine days after the fall of Baghdad.
KSTP in St. Paul is an ABC News affiliate station. Its journalists were embedded with the 101st at the time and shot exclusive footage that may raise new questions about the controversy surrounding the fate of those munitions.
Some 377 tons of high explosives — HMX and RDX and PETN — are said to be missing from the Al-Qaqaa weapons depot and questions have arisen about what the United States knew about the site and what it did to secure it.
During the April 2003 visit, the KSTP reporters say they witnessed U.S. soldiers using bolt cutters to get into bunkers. Inside, they found many containers marked "explosives." At least one set of crates carried the name "Al-Qaqaa State Establishment."
Military personnel told KSTP that the outside perimeter of the area visited had been secured. But the journalists say the area felt more like no-man's-land.
"At one point, there was a group of Iraqis driving around in a pickup truck," said former KSTP reporter Dean Staley. "We were worried they might come near us."
Photojournalist Joe Caffrey recalls seeing Iraqis watching them as they went through the bunkers. As his crew and the troops from the 101st departed each bunker, they left them open.
"We weren't quite sure what we were looking at," said Caffrey. "But we saw so much of it and it didn't appear that this was being secured in any way. It was several miles away from where military people were staying in their tents."
Caffrey also recalled overhearing a military briefing after curious soldiers had encountered another bunker.

And the Minnesota news report:
A 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew in Iraq may have been just a door away from materials that could be used to detonate nuclear weapons.
The evidence is in videotape shot by Reporter Dean Staley and Photographer Joe Caffrey at or near the Al Qaqaa munitions facility.
The video shows a cable locking a door shut. That cable is connected by a copper colored seal.
A spokesperson for the International Atomic Energy Agency told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS that seal appears to be one used by their inspectors.
"In Iraq they were used when there was a concern that this could have a, what we call, dual use purpose, that there could be a nuclear weapons application."

Now some comments.

And of course the most important part, the video, which is a must watch before anybody starts to make comments.


Please note the following with appropriate observations.

1.  The video shows a soldier using bolt cutters to cut a lock on a bunker.  Nowhere can I see the IAEA seal on this bunker.  The IAEA seal mentioned in the first ABC News article:  "The seal's critical," Albright said. "The fact that there's a photo of what looks like an IAEA seal means that what's behind those doors is HMX. They only sealed bunkers that had HMX in them."  There is no evidence when or where this photo was taken.
2.  The barrels contained high explosives.  The first article and the video confirm this: Experts who have studied the images say the barrels on the tape contain the high explosive HMX, and the universal markings on the barrels are clear that these are highly dangerous explosives.  No doubt the barrels contained explosives.
3.  An “inspector?” who was there confirmed that he saw these barrels:  "I talked to a former inspector who's a colleague of mine, and he confirmed that, indeed, these pictures look just like what he remembers seeing inside those bunkers," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.  If this is true, which we have no reason to believe; a.) why didn’t he alert the army to what was there, b.) maybe he did not know at the time what it was, if that is the case he is incompetent,, c.)  why if he knew what is was, has it been a year and a half and he is only now telling.  Let’s also give the name of this colleague.
4.  Crates are clearly marked (from the second ABC News report:   At least one set of crates carried the name "Al-Qaqaa State Establishment."  Why they are written in English is a mystery to me.
5.  Analysis:  Watch the video closely.  The solder cuts the lock and enters the bunker.  We see a myriad of items.  We see a pan shot of the barrels marked with the explosives symbol on them.  The article shows a close-up of the explosives symbol on the barrel.  The explosive where definitely there!  But watch the video again.  The panning shot of the barrels shows about 40 to 50 barrels.  40% of the barrels are open and empty!  The explosives were there at some time, but when the video was made, they were already gone, and the bunker was still sealed!   Somebody removed the explosives (through the ventilation shaft which wasn’t sealed, or maybe through the doors which were resealed) before our troops got there. This seems a lot more plausible than having 380 tons moved afterwards when the roads were all watched.

Good observations, Engineer. 

The problem is the plausibility of the moving of the explosives.

Just to add another 'theory' to the missing explosives.

The open barrels in the video: a.) did the army find them in that condition, or, b.) did they find the barrels sealed, open them up and find them empty.

If it's the latter, what does that say for the UN inspectors.

hearing the Pentagon briefing of Major Austin Pearson it seems that there are distinctly competing stories as to these explosives.  I would believe an officer on the scene quicker than some Iraqi who cannot get his story straight.  I would go with him over the TV station that shot some video at a site that MAY have been at Al QaQaa.  The TV station says that they do not know where they were.

I would go with the grunts on the ground who have the credibility and the expertise to do their jobs.

The are MANY questions as to these explosives but there are NO definitive answers.  Kerry has been out there saying it is a fact.  He has now stopped saying that.  Another flip flop?  I don't know.....not enough information yet.

The Known al Qa Qaa Timeline:


January 2003 -- Al Qa Qaa is "fully inventoried" by IAEA.[1]

March 15, 2003 -- The IAEA confirms the now-missing explosives are accounted for and sealed in place. The Bush Administration subsequently warns UN/IAEA Inspectors to leave country before the invasion begins.[2]

Between March 15 and 19, 2003 -- UN/IAEA Inspectors leave.[2]

March 19, 2003 -- Invasion begins. IAEA warns US of need to secure the al Qa Qaa site.[2,3]

'Immediately after invasion' -- The AP reports: "At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said US-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity."[1]

April 3, 2003 -- Col. Dave Perkins and 3ID battle Iraqis at the al Qa Qaa site but do not search for weapons or explosives. Perkins states area roads were broken up and routes jammed with US convoys, making it improbable that large amounts of material were being transferred all at once (ie, via truck) without being seen.[3]

April 9, 2003 -- Baghdad falls.[2]

April 10, 2003 -- 101st Airborne, under the command of Col. Joseph Anderson, spends 24 hours at al Qa Qaa as a pit stop on its way to Baghdad but does not inspect the cache; they were not ordered to inspect the area.[2,4] (According to the AP and Reuters, troops were not assigned to inspect for weapons or explosives. That is why none were observed -- the troops were not searching for known [or what should have been known] material -- not because the explosives weren't there on the sprawling complex.[2,3])

April 10, 2003 -- Embedded reporter Dana Lewis, with NBC at the time and traveling with the 101st, tapes footage showing explosives material still under IAEA lock and seal throughout the complex.[5]

April 18, 2003 -- Video footage from an embedded reporter shows barrels of explosives still under locked IAEA seals.[6]

May 3, 2003 -- UN requests that Coalition inspectors be sent to the site.[2]

May 8 & 11, 2003 -- Coalition Forces' site survey teams conduct site visits at al Qa Qaa; extent/thoroughness unknown.[2]

May 27, 2003 -- Coalition Forces' site survey teams apparently conduct a search specifically for high-grade explosives at al Qa Qaa and find broken seals with some looters on site. AP reports: "It's not clear whether they did a further accounting of the materials themselves."[2]

October 10, 2004 -- UN inspectors (IAEA) are asked by Iraqi Government authorities to inspect the site after alerting them to the disappearance at al Qa Qaa.[2]

October 15, 2004 and later -- After confirmation, the IAEA later reports to the US and UN that the 380 tons of HMX and RDX that had been stored at al Qa Qaa are now gone.[1]

==
References:

[1] 380 tons of explosives missing in Iraq, By ASSOCIATED PRESS. Oct. 25, 2004 17:45  | Updated Oct. 25, 2004 17:49. Referenced via Jerusalem Post.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1098677410357

[2] What Happened to Missing Iraq Explosives, By CHRISTOPHER CHESTER, Associated Press. Wed Oct 27, 4:47 PM ET. Referenced via Yahoo News.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041027/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_weapons_q_a_1

[3] First U.S. Unit at Iraq Site Did Not Hunt Explosives, By Will Dunham  (Reuters). Wed Oct 27, 6:42 PM ET.  Referenced via Yahoo News.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20041027/ts_nm/iraq_explos ives_pentagon_dc

[4] 4 Iraqis Tell of Looting at Munitions Site in '03, By James Glanz and Jim Dwyer, New York Times. October 28, 2004. Referenced via New York Times website.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/international/middleeast/28bomb.html?oref=login&oref=login& ;pagewanted=print&position

[5] Fox News Channel. Brit Hume interview of Dana Lewis. Broadcast October 26, 2004 18:22:25. Accessed via ShadowTV.com (with transcript).
http://www.shadowtv.com/redirect/notification.jsp?vid=06e78d4352e4f47c0c1a0bf147c30ce2

[6] KSTP-tv, Minneapolis-St. Paul channel 5 ABC affiliate. Embedded reporter's footage of al Qa Qaa depicting explosives containers still under IAEA lock and seal. Footage taped April 18, 2003. Referenced via KSTP-tv website.
http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

You forgot one (at least):

April 13, 2003 - Army demolition team destroys the bulk of explosives at the site.  This was just release from the Pentagon.

The destruction may or may not have included the HMX.

The Pentagon has already been busted lying on the explosives issue. They're trying desperately to save Bush's ass..... and failing.

The Pentagon has already been busted lying on the explosives issue. They're trying desperately to save Bush's ass..... and failing.


Where were they lying, in their tents?

You are not funny.

The Pentagon released a photo of a truck next to a bunker that they said had HMX. That bunker did not have HMX.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al_qa_qaa-imagery4.htm

I am seeing them within about 500 yards of one.

The Pentagon said they were right in front of one.

Borrowed from here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/29/13056/484

he Republicans are doing their level best to muddy the waters on the explosives issue. That means that part of our job has to be to get out a clear, well documented and referenced narrative to counter their noise machine. I hesitated to create yet another diary on this subject but what I want to do here is to consolidate all the great info that's being ferreted by the whole team here and organize it neatly so we have all the facts right at hand.

The second job then is to get it out to everyone. The latest Republican spin is: "this helps us" - not sure how they justify that but we need to counter it by drawing the next conclusion: lost explosives show how incompetent the Bush team is.

Another new dimension to this story which is emerging is the "this is just the tip of the iceberg" storyline.

To sumarize:

1. Al-Qaqaa explosives looted on Bush's watch
2. Bush ordered the oil ministry guarded, NOT the arms depots - shows both incompetence and true motivations.
3. This is just the tip of the iceberg for missing arms
4. MOST important: Bush needs to take responsibility for the fiasco



Diaries :: storme's diary ::

List of Media Outlets
Help the media get the story right - take a few minutes to push this. Especially helpful is to point out how they are lying: the misleading Pentagon photos and the Shaw lies. Shows that they are desperate and trying to weasel out of taking responsibility.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/1/183955/602

The explosives were at Al-Qaqaa when the 101st Airborne Division arrived

1. KSTP footage show explosives in Al-Qaqaa bunkers during invasion.
http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

2. KSTP footage shows SEALED bunkers with IAEA tag
http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=1

3. ABC Video shows explosives at Al Qaqaa on April 18th as reported by the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/politics/29bomb.html?...

4. ABC News reports that the seals indicate HMX was in bunker
"The seal's critical," Albright said. "The fact that there's a photo of what looks like an IAEA seal means that what's behind those doors is HMX. They only sealed bunkers that had HMX in them."
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847

5. NY Times reports Al-Qaqaa looted after Americans left: 4 eyewitnesses
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/international/middlee... 50b42da5ffd60de&ei=5094&partner=homepage

6. UK Independent News eyewitness reports explosives looted after US left.
"Al-Qaqa'a, the Iraqi military complex from which 350 tons of explosives disappeared, was looted after US troops left the area refusing requests to protect the site, Iraqi witnesses say." http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.j...

7. David Kay on ABC tells Aaron Brown: "That is an IAEA seal" and "Those are barrels of HMX"
Transcript: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/28/asb.01.h...

The explosives were NOT removed by US troops
1. ABC Video shows explosives at Al Qaqaa on April 18th as reported by the NY Times: NY Times story

2. The Pentagon press conference Friday AM failed to show that the equipment the soldier spoke of removing was in any way connected to the missing HMX and later photos show the explosives still present on April 18th. The Pentagon is providing political damage control for Bush - why is the Pentagon misleading the American public?

Other Ammo depots abandoned and looted

1. U.S. left ammo site unguarded reports the Oregonian
"Six months after the fall of Baghdad, a vast Iraqi weapons depot with tens of thousands of artillery rounds and other explosives remained unguarded, according to two U.S. aid workers who say they reported looting of the site to U.S. military officials."
http://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/fr...

2. The looting of Iraq's arsenal - Salon reports looting of another arms depot
"But Al Qaqaa is not the whole story. The same month it was being looted, I learned of another major weapons and ammunition storage facility, near my battalion's base at Camp Anaconda, that was unguarded and targeted by looters. But despite my repeated warnings -- and those of other U.S. intelligence agents -- nothing was done to secure this facility, as it was systematically stripped of enough weapons and explosives to equip anti-U.S. insurgents with enough roadside improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, for years to come."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/29/anaconda/i...


Pentagon photos of trucks at Al-Qaqaa are deliberately misleading

1. ** The trucks pictured in the Pentagon satellite photos are NOT at any of the nine bunkers identified by the IAEA as containing the missing explosive stockpiles. Is the pentagon trying to mislead the press? **

"a comparison of features in the DoD-released imagery with available commercial satellite imagery, combined with the use of an IAEA map showing the location of bunkers used to store the HMX explosives, reveals that the trucks pictured on the DoD image are not at any of the nine bunkers indentified by the IAEA as containing the missing explosive stockpiles. "

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al_qa_qaa-...


"The Russians took explosives" story is a lie - Did the Bush campaign ask Shaw to lie?

1. The Russian foreign ministry refutes the story: "Vyacheslav Sedov, the head of the Russian Defence Ministry's press service, quoted by Interfax news agency, said "one cannot regard such reports as other than far-fetched and ridiculous."
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/10/28/iraqrefute.shtml

2 continued. John Shaw, the source of the Russia story is a liar and a fraud:
"A senior Defense Department official conducted unauthorized investigations of Iraq reconstruction efforts and used their results to push for lucrative contracts for friends and their business clients, according to current and former Pentagon officials and documents.

John A. "Jack" Shaw, deputy undersecretary for international technology security, represented himself as an agent of the Pentagon's inspector general in conducting the investigations, sources said.

In one case, Shaw disguised himself as an employee of Halliburton Co. and gained access to a port in southern Iraq after he was denied entry by the U.S. military, the sources said. "
Source: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6441.ht...

You claim that they were looted is kinda hard to make since:

1.  You have not been able to show how.

2.  The video notes that the bunker where the tape was shot was inside the parimeter of an encampment of a brigade of the 101st Airborne.

3.  There is a witness to some of the explosives Kerry claimed was missing being blown up.

This is just jFOOL being a hack and repeating the party lie, er, line.

No proof that the blown up explosives were IAEA.
There is proof that IAEA explosives were left unsecured.

You are a sore loser.

No, unlike you, jfool[/i], I'm honest.  You can't answer the questions so you just spin, spin away, reciting the the party lie, ah, line.

Why don't you answer the question?  Are you incapable of doing so?  It seems Kerry is.

Let me see if I can get the names, licenses, mother's maiden names, and current location of all of the looters involved.

Yeah JJ, What's the question he isn't answering again. 
Exactly how it got stolen?
You've had more faith in assumptions than bush has made and all the sudden your a critical thinker.  Whatever.

That's one of them.  JFOOL claimed that the stories about them being moved were retracted.  Prehaps he isn't being dishonest, but just misread it.  The stories are still there.

Since we know now that the bulk of the explosives were blown up, he no longer has to answer how they were moved if not looted, since they weren't looted, at least the 360 tons that he claimed.

I'm not a critical think "all of a sudden."  If you look under the anti-Kerry rumor thread, you'll see me debunking it, assuming you can read.  You will also note that much of what I post, I document from independent sources, not the "Daily Kos" type partizan sources.  I trust that most people can read them.  Most people.

No I can't read.  It has been my curse my whole life but thankfully I have my grandma here as my personal stenographer to write up all my posts. 

And I just think that you are being as intelecutal disigenous as you accuse Kerry of being when you post the White House's apparant stumblings as a fact.  Just think about all of the different arguements the White House put out over the last 48 hours. Everything from Russia moved it.  To Sadam did.  It wasn't there when we got there.  We destroyed it.  And you defending each arguement.  Obviously somebody is wrong here and there is no more reason to believe this last excuse than there was the first one.

Hey, we have photos of trucks near the site at the right time.  We have a witness that says, in effect, hey there was a lot of stuff there that we blew up.  We have real news media that says hey, the IAEA informed the US on May 3 and were there within 5 days.

Now, we have the counter story.  Somebody sneaked into this base, picked up 360 metric tons of explosives and spirted them away, eighteen tractor trailor loads.  Oh, and yes, they transported it down roads that were filled with Army convoys and patrolled by the Army.  They also did this in exceptionally close proximity to a brigade (about 5 to 6 K people) of the 101st Airbone Division!  That is what you are asking me to believe and that is what John Kerry is asking you to believe.

How was this done, if it was done?  Alladin flew it out on his magic carpet?  Tiny Islamist fairies sprinkled magic desert sand over it to make it lighter and invisible?

This story, on its face, was too incredible to be believed from the start, at least without some evidence; the evidence doesn't support the incredible story.  I feel very sorry for you if are too partizan, too naive, or too stupid to really believe that.  Kerry, obviously, (I hope) isn't that naive or stupid, so that only leaves one option.

I will add that the White House did not put out the story about the Russians, though it could make some sense.  I waited for it to be confirmed by media sources prior to commenting on it.

One other point I haven't heard addressed; and I throw this out there for no other reason. I did not notice any time or date stamp on that video. Granted I have only seen the clips, but neither did I see anything on them indicating where the video was taken. Does anybody actually know?

It was date stamped, according to the reports.  The day was, however, several weeks before IAEA informed the US of the existence of the explosives, according to MSNBC.

The location is though, and there is evidence, that it was someplace on the base, but they could not specify it was one of the bunkers in question.

How many trucks does it take when you are allowed to loot for monthes.

Reporter saw insurgents loot Qaqaa arms depot
By Katrin Bennhold International Herald Tribune
Saturday, October 30, 2004
 
PARIS A French journalist who visited the Qaqaa munitions depot south of Baghdad in November last year said she witnessed Islamic insurgents looting vast supplies of explosives more than six months after the demise of Saddam Hussein's regime.

The account of Sara Daniel, which will be published Wednesday in the French weekly Le Nouvel Observateur, lends further weight to allegations that American occupying forces in Iraq failed to protect hundreds of tons of munitions from extremists plotting attacks against their own troops.

Much of the controversy has centered around the disappearance of about 380 tons of the powerful HMX explosive. The material, which had been monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency before the war and subsequently sealed in bunkers by its inspectors, was reported missing by Iraqi officials earlier this month.

Daniel, who spent nearly two hours at Qaqaa with a group that has since become known as the Islamic Army of Iraq, could not confirm seeing buildings that carried the agency's seal or explosives that were marked to be of the HMX variety. But her report is one of terrorists having easy access to a vast weapons inventory.

"I was utterly stupefied to see that a place like that was pretty much unguarded and that insurgents could help themselves for months on end," Daniel said on Friday. "We were there for a long time and no one disturbed the group while they were loading their truck."

A man who identified himself as Abu Abdallah and led the group Daniel was with, told her that his men and numerous other insurgent groups had rushed to Qaqaa after U.S.-led troops captured Baghdad on April 9 last year. The groups stole truck-loads of material from what used to be the biggest explosive factory in the Middle East in the expectation that coalition forces would move quickly to seal it off, Daniel was told.

Abu Abdullah and his men showed her the arsenal of rocket launchers, grenades and explosives hidden near their small farm houses, she said.

But much to the insurgents' surprise, Qaqaa was not sealed off by U.S. soldiers, leading many groups to stop hoarding and instead going for regular refills of explosive materials, according to Abu Abdullah.

Daniel said she saw how poorly guarded the munitions complex was. During the drive there last November, she recalled seeing few patrols and "far away" from the site. The truck was stopped only once, for about three minutes, Daniel said, by a U.S. soldier in a tank.

Daniel said those who went to Qaqaa to stock up on munitions appeared ready to use them to attack the occupying forces. On Nov. 22, a few days after her visit at Qaqaa, Abu Abdallah's group fired a surface-to-air missile at a DHL cargo-plane. The men gave her a video tape of themselves launching the attack in which she says she clearly recognized Abu Abdallah.

Daniel said she decided to write about her experience at Qaqaa after the disappearance of the HMX explosive became a key dispute in the U.S. presidential election campaign.

The point is that they were not "allowed to loot for months" as you claim khirkboob.  There is a timeline between the base falling and the inspection.  This is what Kerry claims and Kerry's claims are intellectually dishonest, here.

Here we have a report from six months after the explosives went "missing."

Let's where were are:

1.  Trucks with 500 yards of the bunkers before the war started.

2.  A witness to the destruction of 250 metric tons of explosives, including some of the HMX type, within ten days of US being informed it was there.

3.  An inspection, looking for the explosives, which didn't find anything, well before the French report of looting.

Let's see what we don't have:

1.  No way to move the explosives within the time frame, without trucks.

2.  Roads the trucks would have to use being used by the US Army and being patroled by the US Army.

3.  A brigade of Airborne located exceptionally close to the site, which would kinda make it hard for a large force with trucks to show up.

Anything else to add, like "Duh!"

Funny how you have such confidence in what the Pentagon says.

Funny how should so much faith in what people say, that were not there.  No, it's not funny jFOOL, it just an example of pathethic you and Kerry are. 

Politicials like Kerry lie, but Kerry isn't even being a good liar here.

Khirk you said it.....a FRENCH reporter.  Zero credibility.  None, nada, zip.

The site was crawling with U.S. troops.  They did't just sneak 380 tons out.  380 tons.  We blew it up already.  I have confidence that our slodiers knew and know what the hell they were doing.  Give them credit.  Do not denigrate our troops.

Wow, French, that really proves it.  Do you think Bush has any credibility? He's lied like no tommorrow.

This lack of patriotism does infect John Kerry and the loony left, like jFRAUD.  He really seems to enjoy running down the Army while we're engaged in the middle of a way.  I wonder if he'll be referring to them as "Ghengis Kahn."

I don't think it is the military's fault. I have a very miliary family and I think we have the best trained troops, strongest military in the world I think the fault goes to the civilian counterparts who did not go with the pentago suggestion of sending in overwhelming force to capture and secure all targets after the invasion.    Guilliani is the one who blamed the troops for not doing there job.

Second point.  The military documents everything (you wouldn't guess that from the condition of Bush's military records but they do).  One guys saying I might have destroyed some of the ammo that you are talking about though it wasn't really in the same area and didn't have the seals just doesn't convince me.  I wish it could but it doesn't.

No, despite jFRAUD's insinuation, it is not the military's fault.  Within 10 days of the IAEA's letter, delivered in Vienna, the troops in the field were blowing munitions up.  As far as I'm conserned, that's pretty good.

Now, I find it odd to suggest that, with an insurgency going on, and slightly under one metric ton of explosives in the country per soldier in the US Army worldwide, would inventory it first.

I get the impression from you 'boob and from jFRAUD that you don't realize how much explosives were in Iraq.

I don't think you understand that we did not bring in enough troops into the countrey to secure the peace and the weapons.

Obviously, you don't think.  If we took EVERY soldier on active duty in the US Army, all over the world, sent them to Iraq, gave each one an M-16 and a cot, and said, "Okay, each of you guard one ton of explosives," there would be enough troops.  That is the amount of explosive that there is in Iraq.  It would take that kind of manpower to guard the explosives.

There is also the very real problem of trying to get that many troops into Iraq and supplying them.  I did do a thread where this was discussed, and doing some other way creates its own set of problems.

Hey we had all the time in the world to prepare.  The pentagon had advised Bush to go in with more troops.  Bush chose not to and he is therefore responsible fore the consiquences namely all of the important military depots were not secured in a timely manner.

Acttually, they didn't.  The commanders signed off on the orders.

You can't comprehend the suppy problems.  You not only have to transport the additional troops there, but you have to provide for their food and water.  You have to get their equipment in as well.  You don't infinite port facilities to offload all the stuff. 

Once the troops invade, you have continue to supply them.  Yes, there was way to do it, a phased advanced, but it would have run the risk of numerous hit and run attacks by the Iraqis.  It still would not have solved the problem of securing everything, because there were sooooo many explosives.

You don't know if they couldn't have done it.  You don't know that insurgents couldn't have taken the material.  You are defending a reality that needs event to have fallen with-in very specific parameters.  You are treating the unknown as definitive events and you are buying the company line in everything that they say.   

You think that the US military couldn't have secured all known military depots in 2 months and I think that our troop were quite capable of that had they recieved the leadership.  You are the person doubting the military's abiliities.  Bush misinterpreted how the Iraqi would respond to the invasion (against the advice of history, experts and his own father) and I think this is one of many reasons that we did to get a more competant leader.

I wouldn't call it the company line; I would call it basic math.

If you increase the force by one third, for example, you are going to have to increase the following by at least one third:

Food
Water
Weapons and vehicles
Transportation to Iraq

Most, if not all of that comes off of ships.  There is only one port where that stuff can be off-loaded, in Kuwait.  It's like the narrow end of a funnel (maybe that analogy will help).  Even with the forces they had, they strained the Kuwait's point almost to the breaking point.  This has been the kind of problems the Army had in invading Europe in WW II.

It's hard, if not impossible, to do that.  I also would question the wisdom of pulling just about all of the troops out of every base on the planet.  A choice between that and what happened, I choose what happened.

I'll also add that there were supply problems even with the troops that were there, in the first days of the war.

I would also seriously doubt that all the explosives from any war were secured.  There are still things floating around from WW II, that occasionally turn up.

You really are not comprehending the amount of explosives in the country.

Mondo Distortionari, you are stating yourself that Bush had no real plan to secure Iraq and essentially knew this when he dicided to go in.

They went in knowing that they were creating a powder keg, and they did it intentionally.  They knew that there were never going to be close to enough troops there to secure the peace.  I agree with your analysis.


fb

Freedumbburns, with just under one metric ton[/b] per soldier in the entire US Army that Hussein had, you can hardly claim the US created a powder keg, either figuratively or literally.

There are not enough troops in the Army to secure all the explosives in the way you suggest.  We'd have to send the postal service and possibly the Elks, just to get the manpower that you want.

Mondo Distortionari, living up to your new nickname I see.

I never claimed tha Bush created the powder keg.  You are distorting my words. 

I am only agreeing with you.  Bush knew that there was way more weaponry and explosives in Iraq than the US Army could ever hope to secure. 

You are simply restating what I already agreed with you on.  The Bush Administration knew full well that there were not enough troops to secure the country and it's existing stockpiles. 

They let it happen this way because the wanted Iraq to be an unstable morass that would requre our presence for a long time.  This is obviously the reason behind the foot dragging on training the new police force, too.


fb

It's amazing that you can't even seem to understand your own posts.  Here is what you said, "They went in knowing that they were creating a powder keg, and they did it intentionally. "  Now you say, "I never claimed tha Bush created the powder keg.  You are distorting my words. "   Flip flop, in less than one hour.

No force could have "secured" the amount of explosives; there were too many explosives.  Even if we sent in every active duty soldier in the Army, it still wasn't enought.  That's how much Hussein had, and you, and Kerry, don't think this is a treat.

Writing about the ratio of metric tons to soldiers is pointless.

Since the stuff was in secure sites, the appropriate numbers are to discuss how many sites and how many GIs it would take to secure each site.

If the answer is that the US military doesn't have enough people, maybe Bush and Rumsfeld should have considered this important before the war.

Hardly pointless, it is making the point of the amount of explosives this guy had.  It highlights the treat that Hussein was to America and Ameriican interests.

Were these explosives used against US citizens before Bush invaded? After he invaded?

Do you Bushies care about what happens in the real world?

You guys create this paranoid fantasyland where Saddam Hussein is evil and irrational and possessed far more capability than he did. But the reality was that he wasn't much of a threat--even if he wanted to be--and he wasn't the irrational actor you Bushies portray him as.

Ah, let's see, the good, happy, peaceful Saddam:

1.  Invaded Iran.

2.  Invaded Kuwait.

3.  Attempted to assissinate a former US president.

4.  Continiously fired at US and allied planes enforcing the no fly zones (ah, Bill Clinton had a little problem with him too.)

5.  Sheltered terrorist, notably Abu Nidal, who was the mastermind of the Achilli Loro attack.

DefectiveInfest, what planet are you from?!!

Dude, you seem agree. Why? Is it because you know Bush is gonna lose?

Ah, let's see, the good, happy, peaceful Saddam:

1.  Invaded Iran.

2.  Invaded Kuwait.

3.  Attempted to assissinate a former US president.

4.  Continiously fired at US and allied planes enforcing the no fly zones (ah, Bill Clinton had a little problem with him too.)

5.  Sheltered terrorist, notably Abu Nidal, who was the mastermind of the Achilli Loro attack.

DefectiveInfest, what planet are you from?!!

Dude, you seem agree. Why? Is it because you know Bush is gonna lose?

The only thing that I with is that you, DefectiveInfest have lost touch with reality.  In your reality, he may lose, to Napolean I, with John Zogby as Vice President.  In the reality shared by the rest of the planet, Bush defeates Kerry to win a second term as President.

Take your meds.  It might help you deal with reality.

"agree" should be "angry"

So far, I've missed one state.  :-)  Ah, I believbe your record is slightly different.