"In 1989 Al Qaqa was ripped by a large explosion that was later determined to be a crude effort to build an atomic bomb using HMX and RDX. . .
“Aside from the specific nuclear risk posed by HMX, all of the explosives could be used to produce bombs strong enough to collapse buildings or shatter airplanes. Further, if these materials are available to the Iraqi insurgency, they consitute an enormous stock for the road-side bombs and other attacks that have hindred reconstruction and stabilzation efforts, in addition to posing significant danger to coalition troops and Iraqi security forces.”
[quote=“Flipper”]and in 1995(6 years later) the iaea determined that Iraq’s stocks of hmx and rdx did not pose enough of a threat to have them disposed of.
obviously, the iaea did not think it presented much of a “nuclear risk”.[/quote]
Because of its potential nuclear use, and because it was stored at Al Qaqaa, where Saddam Hussein tried many years ago to fabricate the triggering devices for nuclear weapons, the International Atomic Energy Agency put it under special seal. So among the many explosives dumps in Iraq, the location, size and contents of this one were well known to the nuclear agency - and to the United States. . .
Why didn’t the international energy agency blow this material up in the 1990’s?
At the White House and even inside the agency, which is based in Vienna, many people think this was a huge mistake. But the agency decided to allow Mr. Hussein to keep it because he argued he would use it in civilian construction projects.
Don’t make the US a land without free press. I’ll carry the first protest sign.[/quote]
you completely dodged the question.[/quote]
Well of course he/she/it did. That’s all these idiots can do.
Someone actually LOOKS UP FROM IAEA RECORDS what numbers are on the seals, compares them to the NUMBERS ON THE VIDEOTAPED SEALS, notices that THE NUMBERS DON’T MATCH, and these anonymous idiots can’t do anything but bluster about how it’s an “anonymous Republican blogger”. What do they think they are?? They didn’t even bother to check the information for themselves, even though both the video clip and the IAEA data are freely available on the internet.
Nope, they come back and start ranting about how I’m biased.
What a bunch of rude vile pigs. (Or is that trademarked by Elton?)
Don’t make the US a land without free press. I’ll carry the first protest sign.[/quote]
you completely dodged the question.[/quote]
You are suggesting that we “rein” in the blatant maipulation of the media. I say this is a huge story, and the right time to let it be known is when the facts about it are known. The media should not try to downplay the significance of this news story. It wouldn’t provoke much of a response if it was a small story. The media is obligated to make a news story into what it is. Except in China, or any of those nations that don’t have free presses.
Don’t make the US a land without free press. I’ll carry the first protest sign.[/quote]
you completely dodged the question.[/quote]
You are suggesting that we “rein” in the blatant maipulation of the media. I say this is a huge story, and the right time to let it be known is when the facts about it are known. The media should not try to downplay the significance of this news story. It wouldn’t provoke much of a response if it was a small story. The media is obligated to make a news story into what it is. Except in China, or any of those nations that don’t have free presses.[/quote]
The media is absurdly biased. Yes, there are conservative news stations and conservative magazines.
However, none of these are reporting false documents to harm one of the candidates.
Go ahead and report facts. But report all the facts. I just read that the 377 tons of explosives in question, if it was looted, would represent 0.006% of the total amount of explosives located in Iraq.
Report the news. The responsibility is ours to look at it with a bit of perspective.
[quote=“Tigerman”]The media is absurdly biased. Yes, there are conservative news stations and conservative magazines.
However, none of these are reporting false documents to harm one of the candidates.
Go ahead and report facts. But report all the facts. I just read that the 377 tons of explosives in question, if it was looted, would represent 0.006% of the total amount of explosives located in Iraq.
Report the news. The responsibility is ours to look at it with a bit of perspective.[/quote]
Here’s the perspective that matters: given the predictable amount of loose stuff on the floor after Bush chose to ‘break’ Iraq on his flawed timetable (i.e., before building any meaningful coalition and thus providing a sufficient force in supplement to American forces), it’s ludicrous to argue that 377 tons of high explosives is de minimis. That’s like saying that, if Saddam had had biological WMDs, then getting hold of them and destroying all but 0.0006% was somehow a ‘win’; even a few pounds of live plague virus in the hands of terrorists/insurgents would be catastrophic.
Christ, you guys are shameless. Apparently no standard is low enough for POTUS as long as Bush is he.
Bush knew going in that he didn’t have enough troops to do the job he took on. Going in anyway is exactly why he should be fired by American voters on Tuesday.
Again, the Republicans scramble like cockroaches when the light of truth is turned on them, offering up false information time and time again from anonymous “hard working” (or is it “hardly workin’”) Republican bloggers who make up false credits for photos. Falls into the usual category of behavior when confronted about Bush administration catatrophes:
Deny, deny, deny – no matter what the facts are.
Assert that the person making the allegation must be lying (e.g., the photograph of the shoebox on Bush’s back during the first two debates must have been “PhotoShopped”, the woman who was sexually harrassed by O’Reilly must be “shaking him down”; the footage of the explosives must have been “faked”).
Make up new lies (e.g., the box on the President’s back could be a tiny box-shaped bulletproof vest despite statements to the contrary, the explosives’ location was searched even if it wasn’t, the explosives must have been destroyed even if they weren’t, Bush’s bike accident was because of the nonexistent rain, and so on).
The DoD “March 17” photograph is part of a long line of Bush administration abuses of facts. In the Republican world, the EPA scientists can be coerced to ignore science, financial analysis can be replaced with voodoo economics, and even the DoD will release photos to try to cover the ass of the president at the expense of truth.
The trucks are in front of the wrong bunker, but the Republicans don’t want Americans to know this. If a Republican tells you it’s sunny outside, you’d better check the window.
You mean, the way Bush did it? I’d say not many, it’s true, but again it provides sufficient reason to fire Bush on Tuesday.
The thing is, Bush didn’t realize that he had no choice. Not achieving sufficient force size - one way or another - means the invasion is precluded. Period.
Didn’t Bush assume vast quantities of WMD when he invaded Iraq? Hell yes he did.
So invading w/out a force sufficient to secure, account for, and control all stockpiles - especially after kicking out UN inspectors before as well as preventing their entry/help after - is what, wisdom?!?!?
Give me a break. Fire Bush on Tuesday, he’s more than earned it.
Don’t make the US a land without free press. I’ll carry the first protest sign.[/quote]
you completely dodged the question.[/quote]
Well of course he/she/it did. That’s all these idiots can do.
Someone actually LOOKS UP FROM IAEA RECORDS what numbers are on the seals, compares them to the NUMBERS ON THE VIDEOTAPED SEALS, notices that THE NUMBERS DON’T MATCH, and these anonymous idiots can’t do anything but bluster about how it’s an “anonymous Republican blogger”. What do they think they are?? They didn’t even bother to check the information for themselves, even though both the video clip and the IAEA data are freely available on the internet.
Nope, they come back and start ranting about how I’m biased.
What a bunch of rude vile pigs. (Or is that trademarked by Elton?)[/quote]
[quote]
Lyndon Johnson was … desperate… he called his equally depressed campaign manager and instructed him to call a press conference for just before lunch on a slow news day and accuse his high-riding opponent, a pig farmer, of having routine carnal knowledge of his barnyard sows, despite the pleas of his wife and children.
His campaign manager was shocked. “We can’t say that, Lyndon,” he supposedly said. “You know it’s not true.”
“Of course it’s not true!” Johnson barked at him. “But let’s make the bastard deny it!”[/quote]
Did you want a brief answer? I can take a crack at this, but I haven’t seen a story specifically confirming or rebutting the ABC allegation that only 3 tons were present at Al-Qaqaa. However, it does seem possible that those internal reports do not demonstrate all the information necessary to know how much RDX was present at Al-Qaqaa. I used quotes taken from the ABC website. An AP article on the ABC website refers to ABC citing IAEA internal documents, but does not give the report a thumbs up or a thumbs down.
[quote]ABC News, citing IAEA inspection documents, reported Wednesday night that the Iraqis had declared 141 tons of RDX explosives at Al-Qaqaa in July 2002, but that the site held only three tons when it was checked in January 2003.
The network said that could suggest that 138 tons were removed from the facility long before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
But Fleming said most of the RDX about 125 tons was kept at Al-Mahaweel, a storage site under Al-Qaqaa’s jurisdiction located outside the main Al-Qaqaa site. She also said about 10 tons already had been reported by Iraq as having been used for non-prohibited purposes between July 2002 and January 2003. [/quote]
138 tons under Al-Qaqaa jurisdiction - 125 tons kept at Al-Mahaweel (located outside the main site) - 10 tons used by Iraq = 3 tons. It adds up; does that prove it was all accounted for? ABC did not reassert their position that the IAEA report showed inconsistency,
This is my own math, and it adds up, but the US denies IAEA access to Al-Qaqaa to this day. We won’t hear more proof from the IAEA. The most they can do is explain what their documents mean.
The IAEA is not as concerned about RDX, and no discrepancy over amounts of HDX have been aired by ABC or any other network to my knowledge. “IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei informed the United Nations in February 2003, and again in April of that year, that he was concerned about HMX explosives, which were stored at Al-Qaqaa.” They have not been allowed back to Al-Qaqaa.
I had never heard this news story until today. I would have been interested in hearing the news as it broke. There were no fatalities, and the scene seems a little comic:
[quote]
Caffrey also recalled overhearing a military briefing after curious soldiers had encountered another bunker. "Apparently two soldiers had gone in to these bunkers, lit a match for light and the fumes or powder
But a few tons of “live plague virus” in the hands of Saddam would be perfectly safe, eh?
Incidentally, plague is caused by Yersinia pestis, a bacterium. (And I didn’t even have to look that up.)
Zeus, you guys are shameless. Apparently no standard is low enough for you as long as Bush is POTUS.
But actually, if Kerry were the president (HAHAHAHA!) and if he were to invade Iraq, capture Saddam, and generally do what Bush has done (but better, because Kerry has a PLAN! HAHAHAHA!), I’d be vociferously calling you an idiot if you were posting this crap about Kerry missing 0.006% of the explosives, too. But you wouldn’t be posting it then; you’d be singing hosannas to Kerry’s name and demanding proclamations that his shit doesn’t stink.
The problem is, if Kerry had been President for the last four years, we’d still be negotiating with the Taliban over what shape of table would be used at the negotiations to discuss handing over Osama. Forget about invading Iraq, we’d have suicide bombers on every streetcorner because Kerry wouldn’t have done shit as far as rounding up suspicious characters.
Well, based on the evidence to date, I think it’s safe to assume that it would have enjoyed far better protection under Saddam than under Bush.
From a prof at the US Navy War College, writing in USA Today on October 5, 2003:
[url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-05-wagner_x.htm][i]"It didn’t have to turn out this way. In the weeks before the invasion, the U.S. military repeatedly warned the White House that its war plans did not include sufficient ground forces, air and naval operations and logistical support to guarantee a successful mission. Those warnings were discounted
Based on past experience watching how the Bush administration has handled politically embarrassing matters, you can generally bet that where there’s smoke there’s a lot of fire. Thus, if the Bush administration is willing to get the DoD to release a falsely labeled photograph of the bunkers and claim it shows trucks carting away explosives in March (when in actuality the trucks are in front of different bunkers entirely), you can pretty much infer that the Republicans are in high-stress CYA mode.
At this point, I think it is a quite likely possibility that Bush administration officials either gave or allowed terrorists to have the explosives. The Bush administration has done nothing but submit falsehoods in response to the reasonable questions posed by its citizens, and their having dealt with the citizenry in bad faith gives rise to the worst assumptions regarding their motives.
[url=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-explosives4nov04,1,1919348.story?coll=la-home-headlines]…The soldiers said about a dozen U.S. troops guarding the sprawling facility could not prevent the theft because they were outnumbered by looters. Soldiers with one unit
