posted
And for what it's worth, Chad, I think Steve was being inappropriately hostile towards you in this thread; compared to previous efforts, I'm very impressed by your restraint. Thank you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I will need to find references regarding the true timeline of the explosives at Al Qaqaa (spelling, I know...) before I shoot off my mouth and accuse people of lying.
Personally, I believe that when Bush invaded Iraq, he pretty much took on the responsibility of policing Iraq. He knew of the stockpile of high-explosives, and (contrary to Chad's concern over the "hundreds" of building in the complex) I would bet that we had decent UN intel on just what building was sealed with those explosives inside. I will have to confirm Dag's statement that the explosives did not go missing until recently (certainly after that huge window of opportunity between March 2003 and March 2003), but it again points to a critical lack of concern for what is important. This is not a small cache of weapons. This is not a couple of old and empty shells with traces of expired Sarin and Mustard Gas. This is serious stuff; we knew where it was (probably RIGHT where it was), and (I have to think) chose to ignore the security risk.
Either we're competent or we're not. Unless, of course, we're only partly competent.
I have found these two conflicting essays on Clinton and Bin Laden, though. How to decide...
posted
They actually have the audio recording of him stating why he didn't take OBL when offered. The media may try to "spin" away the blame (Dan Rather did in his interview), but he actually said it, on tape.
Pretty hard to dispute that, although the media has tried.
quote:February 2002 business luncheon in New York, Clinton said this:
"Mr. Bin Laden used to live in Sudan ... And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
posted
It appears they are stickers. This article gives a bit of insight into the problems at another site 3 weeks after invasion. We secured the site, but couldn't verify if the contents were in tact.
There is friction between El Baradei and the US. The IAEA is the only organization that can "break" the seals to see what's inside per the "Non-Nuclear Proliferation Agreement"
quote: President Bush's senior advisers have accused the IAEA, under Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, of being hostile to U.S. objectives in Iraq. Civilian policy officials in the Pentagon, according to people with first-hand knowledge, initially proposed to make a complete inspection of Tuwaitha without the IAEA -- an exercise that apparently would have required U.S. government experts to break seals the agency's inspectors placed on safeguarded nuclear materials. The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which the United States is a signatory, gives the IAEA exclusive authority over those seals.
posted
Just to make sure I get off on the right foot.
I apologize to Chad for even implying he was an ***-**** (I'm so embarassed, I don't want to repeat it); it was wrong of me to do so.
But now I'm back:
quote:Did anyone NOT read the articles? They were under the control of the IAEA until they what?
They LEFT before the war in Iraq even began (Read the CNN article). So then they were under the control of WHO until the invasion began?
Except now it's been revealed by numerous reliable sources that the seals (flimsy as they were) were intact even after we had "Mission Accomplished." The explosives didn't go missing until we were in charge of Iraqi security.
In fact, American troops illegally broke open the IAEA seals in front of a (CBS?) news crew. Illegally, because only the IAEA was allowed to open the seals, and there were no IAEA members present at the time.
Which also puts the lie to your other statement that "the compound was so huge (which it was) that they didn't know which bunker hid the explosives." Because, obviously, they knew exactly where the explosives were after they broke the seal on camera!
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The progress of this has been very interesting. Only a few days ago, following Bush administration denials and protests, the right wing was all over the media and the democrats for jumping too quickly to conclusions.
Given the CBS footage, I have to conclude that right wingers have once again been too quick to dismiss criticisms of the administration.
How much evidence must we a mass before Bush's supporter recognize that this adminstration can not be trusted.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Pentagon today suggested that up to two-thirds of the missing Iraqi high explosives that have stirred controversy in the current election campaign were actually destroyed by a U.S. Army unit last year, but a unit commander presented at a press conference to buttress that claim said he could not confirm that the ordnance he seized included the explosives in question.
Army Maj. Austin Pearson, who commanded an ordnance company in the 3rd Infantry Division during last year's invasion of Iraq, said his unit removed 250 tons of TNT, plastic explosives, detonation cords and white-phosphorous rounds from the Qaqaa storage site 30 miles south of Baghdad on April 13, 2003. He said the munitions were later destroyed.
The International Atomic Energy Agency reported Monday that 377 tons of high explosives -- including compounds known as HMX and RDX -- were missing from the Qaqaa site. HMX can be used to trigger nuclear weapons.
Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita told the press conference that "plastic explosives" was a term commonly used for RDX, one of three types of high-powered explosives that were placed under seal at the Qaqaa site by the IAEA.
Di Rita said, "We believe that some of the things they [U.S. troops] were pulling out of there were RDX." But he acknowledged that this could not be confirmed, and he said further study was needed.
The suggestion that RDX was among the explosives destroyed by Pearson's unit also appeared to be at odds with an ABC News video, shot by an embedded reporter, that showed soldiers of the Army's 101st Airborne Division cutting a wire seal on a bunker and inspecting explosives stored inside on April 18, five days after Pearson said his unit removed munitions. Weapons experts said the wire seal shown on the video was placed there by the IAEA and that the explosives inside the bunker were of the kinds that have been reported missing.
"I did not see any IAEA seals at any of the locations we went into," Pearson said at the press conference. "I was not looking for that."
Di Rita sought to play down the significance of the missing explosives, noting that they amounted to less than "one-thousandth" of the 400,000 tons of Iraqi munitions of all types that the Pentagon says have been seized by U.S. forces since the invasion.
The missing explosives are believed to have been removed last year sometime between March 15 -- the last time U.N. inspectors visited the Qaqaa site -- and May 8, when a U.S. weapons-hunting unit began a thorough search of the vast compound and failed to find any explosives that had been quarantined by the IAEA.
The U.S.-backed Iraqi interim government has said the explosives disappeared after U.S. forces toppled the government of Saddam Hussein on April 9, 2003. The government has attributed the loss to looting amid lax security. The Bush administration has suggested that the munitions were removed by the Hussein regime before the Americans took over.
Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry has seized on the issue to buttress his charges that Bush mismanaged the war, failing to ensure that depots of dangerous weapons and ammunition were secured and not dispatching sufficient troops and equipment to accomplish that task.
In a statement issued by the Kerry campaign today, retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark said the Pentagon briefing raised more questions than it answered and only added to confusion over "conflicting explanations for why hundreds of tons of explosives, munitions and weapons were not properly secured in Iraq."
He said, "President Bush needs to address this issue and level with the American people and our troops about why protecting these dangerous materials was not a high priority. It is shameful that George Bush remains silent, letting our troops take the blame for his failed leadership."
In television interviews last night and this morning, David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, confirmed that, based on a videotape aired by ABC News last night, the high explosives were still inside a sealed bunker when U.S. troops entered it on April 18, 2003. The video shows soldiers cutting a thin wire seal that Kay said was used by the IAEA, entering the bunker and looking at explosives in one of scores of barrels and crates.
posted
Nor have I. In fact, the latest things I've seen have been CBS and NBC reports from March of 2003 fomr their embedded reporters that indicated that there were no seals and all the stuff was already gone when our forces got there. These reports also indicate that the facility had indeed been struck by our air power before our boys on the ground got there too, in spite of what someone said back on page 1.
I've also seen reports stating that it was 3 tons, not 380.
Someone also wondered why we didn't have flyovers, satellite imagery, etc of this site leading up to the invasion. Well. . . the reports I've seen also say that we do have quite a bit of all that, and that there were convoys of Russian trucks at the site taking stuff out in the weeks prior to our invasion.
Granted, it's mostly blogs and "conservative sites" I'm going to, so it's gotta be taken with a grain of salt, but I believe the same of the "MSM" anymore eiher.
And I'm actually surpised that no one has mentioned yet that there are/were an estimated million tons of weapons, ordnance, and explosives in Iraq that have been secured and accounted for and that anywhere from 240,000 to 400,000 tons of that has already been destroyed and the rest is in process of being destroyed.
Assuming the reports that I've seen are true what we have is:
a) the stuff was taken before we got there b) it represents about 0.04% of the stuff that we have secured and are working on destroying. c) it was reported missing in March of 2003 when our troops got there, so bringing it up now is a complete non-issue, intended to inflame those disposed to believe that everything we do in Iraq is a mistake.
posted
I'm sure I must have taken more than my share of stupid pills this morning, but maybe someone here can clean this up for me.
1) Bush & Company claim that Iraq is home to Weapons of Mass Destruction (Chem/Bio/Nukular), and that we know where it all is, and that we have to go in and get it so "Saddam" (why do they keep referring to him on a "first name basis"? Is it to show disrespect? How shameful!) can't attack us with it or give it to terrorists.
2) Meanwhile, Georgie & friends apparently know that Saddam has OVER 400,000 TONS OF HIGH-EXPLOSIVES (including some of sufficient strength that they can be used to trigger nuclear fission).
We really, truly KNOW that he has these high-explosives. A pound of this stuff can tear a hole in a 747. A ton (or less, if properly placed) can topple a tall office building. We also really, truly KNOW exactly where he's got it hidden (no made up stories, like from Rumsfield & Powell).
So why didn't the Bush administration use this as a legitimate reason to invade--or, at least, as a supplemental reason? And why, if keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of terrorists (a STATED CLAIM for why we went to war) was so important, did we not try harder to keep these weapons out of the hands of terrorists?
Something's missing here. Something just does not add up.
Is it me? Am I just stupid? (Don't answer that, Farmgirl or CStroman!)
What critical fact have I overlooked?
--Steve
[edited it to correct 400,000 pounds to 400,000 TONS!]
quote:So why didn't the Bush administration use this as a legitimate reason to invade--or, at least, as a supplemental reason?
Every nation on earth -- and a lot of private actors -- have access to high-powered explosives. To invade a country in order to prevent it from (possibly) supplying such to terrorists would appear beyond ridiculous. If there were incontrovertible evidence that Saddam had supplied explosives to al Quaida and that those had been used in a large scale terror attack -- then perhaps. Anything less and Bush would have been laughed out of the Security Council.
That's the order the stories came out in. You should be able to access the video from the links at the top of each page, though I didn't, as I'd already seen them. They reporters were embedded with the 101st and the video shows the IAEA seal on the door.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Also, there were many IAEA seals on various barrels of items and weapons and doors in that complex. The ones shown in the video may be ones that were secured and accounted for. The ones that are missing may have been destroyed.
We don't know yet. That video is of ONE bunker.
Unfortunately we have our troops, and the IAEA who are not working together to sort this out.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, as you know ( ) I am hardly a Bush supporter.
However, I hope that they really were destroyed, as that would be best for everyone....no soldiers killed by them, no civillians getiing hold of them, no bombings with the material.
I won't hold my breath for that to be the case, but whatever our politics we whould be hoping that Bush & Co either finds them or can prove they have been destroyed.
quote: Asked whether he could say the destroyed munitions included any of the explosives previously monitored by the IAEA, Pearson said, "I don't know. I don't have that information."
"I did not see any IAEA seals at the locations that we went into. I was not looking for that," Pearson added....
'ALMOST CERTAINLY'
Chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said "some percentage" of the explosives monitored by the IAEA was "almost certainly removed from bunkers and destroyed by Major Pearson's unit." He did not explain how he came to that conclusion.
Interesting. Is the Pentagon grasping at straws or do they have additional information to back up their conclusion that they cannot reveal due to security reasons?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Based on my experience with the military (Navy, mainly with NAVFAC and base closure, civillian contractor), I'd guess they have some kind of record it was destroyed by someone (an email or something) but not the official records that would verify for sure.
"Almost certainly" is code for "I think so, but I know if I say 'definitely' and turn out to be wrong I'll be stationed in Antartica before the press conference is over."
posted
We don't have the break-down of the 400,000 tons of "munitions." Don't forget this includes guns that have been passed down for a few generations as well as 'high powered explosives." On the other hand, we know the break-down of the missing IAEA-sealed package. And it was a darned lot of explosives that can blow up a great deal of things. I think it's all smoke and mirrors to compare the two as showing how the missing explosives 'aren't a big deal.'
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, given that the press is eager to jump on any military mistake right now, I don't blame them for being extra cautious.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regardless of the changing story of what happened to the ammunition...
If Hans Blix and the IAEA only sealed these weapons without marking them as "to be destroyed" or somehow marking them as weapons that Iraq must get rid of according to UN resolution -- then what exactly is the big deal?
IAEA said there were no weapons of mass destruction found, so I'm assuming these were considered "conventional" and allowed by UN law.
posted
They are conventional, but they are of a sort that is necessary to making modern nuclear weaponry (detonating a nuclear explosion as used in modern bombs requires a very large and very precise triggering explosion), which is why they were under seal.
That they can be used as such did not warrant they be destroyed under our agreement with Iraq, particularly as there are legitimate non-military uses (building demolition, for instance). However, they were kept under seal except as specifically released for such purposes because they are so powerful.
"Coincidentally", large amounts of the explosives being used in Iraq are of the sort one could make from the explosives in this cache. Not to mention that the army considered it important enough that they destroyed approximately 250 tons of less powerful explosives found in part of the complex, suggesting that this cache of the most powerful non-nuclear explosives known to man might perhaps have been good to keep, say, secure?
Second, just because Iraq the country could have them does not mean it is no big deal if Iraqi insurgents have them. Iraq the country could have all sorts of tank destroying and anti-troop weaponry that we would rather keep out of Iraqi insurgent hands, thank you very much. I would rather not expose our troops to the delicate touch of extremely high explosives.
I repeat, these explosives are very powerful, and very popular with terrorists and the insurgents in Iraq. They are not easy to make, and they are not easy to obtain. We let enough to make literally millions of bombs slip out from under us and we are brushing this over as no big deal because they weren't nukes?!
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) I am hardly a Bush supporter.
