NEWS: 380 Tons of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq - (UPDATE: TIMING QUESTIONED)

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

There is only the ineptitude of the deepest and most serious kind of which allowed the attacks on 9/11 to occur. So now, indeed, the connection between 9/11 and Iraq has been found -- the inept U.S. Government is the long sought-after connection.

That sums it up nicely.
The "spin" to watch? How the knowledge of this cache, heralded by everyone from Ritter to Blix to Kay prior to the invasion, disregarded while guarding important things like the oil ministry, was able to be suppressed for this long!?!
It dovetails nicely with political partisan hack Porter Goss suppressing that CIA report which names the names of those responsible in this administration for 9/11 stand downs/failures.

SPIN????

The only party responsible for spin would be the democratic. The facts are that Bagdhad fell on April 9th and US troops with an inbedded reporter made it to the munitions dump on April 10th. When they made it there the 380 tons was missing. And for clarification it would take 40 semis to move that material out so NO it didn't get moved out on April 9th it was moved much earlier.

Those are the facts no spin.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
As OpenMinded pointed out in his post above the military was on the way to secure the site. When they got there the site was empty. So again another baseless attempted Democrat/ Media attack out of desperation.

How come a cruise missile was not on its way to "secure" the site a week earlier? Sure there was enough rockets to pound downtown Bagdhad into rubble.

The administration is not interested in real issues. There was no WMD. Powel was shaking an empty glass vial when makeing a speech, mentioning anthrax. Deception and scare tactics, and complete disregard to real issues.

The news is now coming out that the charges are bogus. The story is just breaking...seems like the explosives were never there when we got there!

Looks like CBS was planning an October surprise for election eve.... it has now blown up in their face, once again. It's on DRUDGE.



[edit on 26-10-2004 by jsobecky]

[edit on 26-10-2004 by jsobecky]

If it were UN inspectors or US inspectors, the intel was exact: where it was & how much. Prime Targets? During Shock & Awe? On that list of, you know?
Suppressing the information all this time served what purpose?

The administration is trying to play down the importance of this loss, arguing that because Iraq was awash in munitions, a few hundred more tons don't make much difference. But aside from their potential use in nuclear weapons - the reason they were under seal before the war - these particular explosives, unlike standard munitions, are exactly what a terrorist needs.

Informed sources quoted by the influential Nelson Report say explosives from Al Qaqaa are the "primary source" of the roadside and car bombs that have killed and wounded so many U.S. soldiers. And thanks to the huge amount looted - "in a highly organized operation using heavy equipment" - the insurgents and whoever else have access to the Qaqaa material have enough explosives for tens of thousands of future bombs.

If the administration had had its way, the public would never have heard anything about this. Administration officials have known about the looting of Al Qaqaa for at least six months, and probably much longer. But they didn't let the I.A.E.A. inspect the site after the war, and pressured the Iraqis not to inform the agency about the loss. They now say that they didn't want our enemies - that is, the people who stole the stuff - to know it was missing. The real reason, obviously, was that they wanted the news kept under wraps until after Nov. 2.

NY Times

from NBC News

At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-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. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Well, the DNC has struck while the iron's hot:

Latest DNC commercial

Originally posted by titian
Well, the DNC has struck while the iron's hot:

Latest DNC commercial

My critique? If he's speaking directly to the cam, why the " I'm John Kerry & I approve this message"? Is that some sort of campaign broadcast law?

Originally posted by Bout Time

Originally posted by titian
Well, the DNC has struck while the iron's hot:

Latest DNC commercial

My critique? If he's speaking directly to the cam, why the " I'm John Kerry & I approve this message"? Is that some sort of campaign broadcast law?

Yes it is.

So the Dems are using information based on bogus intelligence to scare the public?


This REALLY sounds like a familiar battle cry...

If that much conventional explosives can "disappear" why not WMD's..?

Kerry is screwing up this one..LOL..

Bout time,

The NBC reporters reported that the site was bombed and many of the bunkers lie open. So your argument about Cruise Missles is incorrect. Also you may not want to argue by quoting the original source that lied.

Why would the Democrats put this information out there in the twilight hours prior to the 2004 election?

I will tell you why.

They are afraid, very afraid, they know they are about to lose the White House to a Republican.....again.....for another 4 years.

This story, just like Rathergate, shows once again to the American Public what sort of lies the Liberals will fabricate when they are desperate.

Only explosives to blow up here is this story, right in John Kerry's face.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
380 Tons of Explosives Missing in Iraq.
Can we now really trust any small attribute of the original story and theory regarding Iraq and weapons? If the U.S. Government had even the slightest suspicions that massive weapons caches would be found, certainly the manpower would have been reserved to guard these dangerous stockpiles. Instead, there are no guards. There are no plans.

Of course the US Government knew all about these explosives.
They should have been targets for the first day of the war!!!

EVERYBODY is spinning; EVERYBODY is misleading; EVERYTHING being said by EVERYBODY

IS POLITICAL because EVERYBODY involved in this is dirty in one way or the other.

In the lastest articles on this subject the IAEA is quoted as stating:

The IAEA said that before the war it inspected the Al Qa'qaa facility multiple times and verified that the material was present in January 2003. The agency said the material was mentioned in reports to the U.N. Security Council that were made public.

cnnstudentnews.cnn.com...

But this statement is misleading because the explosives stores inventory took place in November-December, 2002. ALL SUBSEQUENT VISITS to Al Qa'qaa in January thru March of 2003 were for specific checks of chemical, nuclear weapons, missiles.

You see, in 1998 the IAEA sealed 228 tonnes of HMX in bunkers at Al Qa'qaa. Unfortunately, this was FIVE YEARS after IAEA-20 team initiated worked to get these explosives moved, in entirety from Al-Qa'qaa to Muthanna, because the bunkers at Al-Qa'qaa were not secure nor in good condition to house these explosives. IAEA-22 team was supposed to complete this task. They never did. Instead, the bunkers were sealed by the IAEA in 1998 and then the IAEA did not return until 2002. It was during the December 2002 inspection that it was found that 32 tonnes of these explosives were missing. The Iraqi's stated they moved them to various mining and construction locations and used them.

1993 IAEA Report (Nov 3, 1993) where IAEA-20 has begun preparatory work to have all HMX at Al Qa'qaa moved to Muthanna due to bunker condition and security. States IAEA-22 will complete this task.

Read here

An d read here

228 tons of high-explosives at Al Qa'qaa (Dec 3, 1997)

daccess-ods.un.org... 26Lang%3DE%26Area%3DUNDOC+qa+qaa&ie=utf8&site=un_org&output=xml_no_dtd&client=un_org&a ccess=p&num=10&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fsearch%2Fun_org_stylesheet.xs lt&oe=utf8" target="_blank" class="postlink">Read here

Inventory of explosives at Al Qa'qaa (Dec.9, 2002)

www.un.org... ngs/december/UNMOVIC%2520IAEA%2520press%2520statement%25209%2520Dec%252002.pdf+qa+qaa& ie=utf8&site=un_org&output=xml_no_dtd&client=un_org&access=p&num=10&proxystylesheet=ht tp%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fsearch%2Fun_org_stylesheet.xslt&oe=utf8" target="_blank" class="postlink">Report referencing inventory

ElBaradei comments that they are still going through "an accounting of all HMX in Iraq" to determine how much HMX is missing.(Jan 9, 2003) Please note that at this time the IAEA has stated it has "verified and resealed the remaining 196 tonnes of HMX at Al-Qa'qaa - the inspection is complete. ElBaradei is admitting they're currently scouring the Iraqi country-side trying to verify HMX is either at, or was used at, the locations the Iraqi's have stated they moved them to (construction and mining locations).

ElBaradei comment

Report stating that the Iraqi's have declared that some portion of HMX explosives have been moved and used in construction or mining operations: (Jan 27, 2003 - This is the final inspection report on January 27, 2003. This statement is based on the December 2002 inventory...there were NO INVENTORY EFFORTS taking place in January on high-explosives at Al-Qa'qaa.)

www.un.org... spection%22+AND+report+AND+2003+AND+iraq&ie=utf8&site=un_org&output=xml_no_dtd&client= un_org&access=p&num=10&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fsearch%2Fun_org_style sheet.xslt&oe=utf8" target="_blank" class="postlink">Read here

Report to Security Council stating that an 32 tonnes of the 228 tonnes of HMX had been reported to be moved to construction and mining purposes but could not be confirmed. Reports that the remaining "approx. 196 tonnes of HMX" was verified and resealed by IAEA. (jan 27, 2003)

www.escwa.org.lb... ea+AND+%22inspect%22+AND+report++AND+iraq&ie=utf8&site=un_org&output=xml_no_dtd&client =un_org&access=p&num=10&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fsearch%2Fun_org_styl esheet.xslt&oe=utf8" target="_blank" class="postlink">Read here

Report stating 32 tonnes of HMX had been transferred OUT of al qa'qaa and that the IAEA was dubious they would ever be able to confirm that the Iraqi account that this material was used for mining and construction was legit (Feb 24, 2003)

www.escwa.org.lb... +iaea+AND+%22inspection%22+AND+report+AND+2003+AND+iraq&ie=utf8&site=un_org&output=xml _no_dtd&client=un_org&access=p&num=10&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fsearch %2Fun_org_stylesheet.xslt&oe=utf8" target="_blank" class="postlink">Read here

Then we get into the 2003 (Jan-Mar) inspections...they were NOT to re-inspect the high-explosives, as the high-explosive bunkers had already been sealed. The IAEA can make NO CONCLUSIVE STATEMENT AS TO HOW MUCH HMX WAS AT AL-QA'QAA PAST DECEMBER 2002...THEY DIDN'T CHECK AGAIN.

States that a "nuclear team" went to al Qa'qaa, no mention of explosives stores: (jan 15, 2003)

www.cnn.com...

A chemical weapons team, no mention of checking explosive stores: (jan 18, 2003)

www.cnn.com...

Again, another article stating that it was a chemical team. (jan. 18, 2003)

A chemical team visited Al Qaqaa complex in Yousefiya, about 30 kilometers (19 miles) south of Baghdad. Previously, Iraq's nuclear program used the site for the production of high explosive lenses, detonators and propellants for nuclear weapons.

www.cnn.com...

Inspectors revisit Al Qa'Qaa (jan 24, 2003) - This article clarifies that the visit was by a "chemical weapons team" (jan 22, 2003) no mention of explosive stores or conventional ammo checks.

www.cnn.com...

States that upcoming visit to Al Qa'qaa is to "verify that Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction" does not state inventory of explosives stores will be done: (feb 2, 2003)

www.cnn.com...

Missile team inspect Al Qa'qaa where missile-related raw material and chemicals are stored, no report on inspection (Feb 25, 2003)

www.un.org... ngs/february/UNMOVIC%2520IAEA%2520on%2520inspections%252025%2520feb.pdf+qa+qaa&ie=utf8 &site=un_org&output=xml_no_dtd&client=un_org&access=p&num=10&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2 F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fsearch%2Fun_org_stylesheet.xslt&oe=utf8" target="_blank" class="postlink">Report on Inspection

Interview with Nic Robertson stating the inspection team found a chemical warhead at Al Qa'qaa, but no mention of explosive stores being checked or inventoried:

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, they've found another chemical warhead from exactly the same type of 122 millimeter missile as the warheads they discovered about two and a half weeks ago at an ammunition site, al QaQaa just south of Baghdad.

transcripts.cnn.com...

Missile team visit Al Qa'qaa for the purpose of "verification of emptying and tagging of warheads for al samoud 2 missiles, chemical team inspected sulphuric acid plant - no explosives stores inspection (March 8, 2003)

www.un.org... ngs/march/UNMOVIC%2520IAEA%2520Press%2520Statement%25208%2520Mar%252003.pdf+qa+qaa&ie= utf8&site=un_org&output=xml_no_dtd&client=un_org&access=p&num=10&proxystylesheet=http% 3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fsearch%2Fun_org_stylesheet.xslt&oe=utf8" target="_blank" class="postlink">Report on Inspection

Now, concerning when Al Qa'qaa was taken and how much time could have elapsed with improper security from the U.S. The U.S. took Al-Qa'qaa on April 4th and found "thousands and thousands" of small boxes, each with three vials containing white powder. Though we never get a "yes, indeedy it was explosive" statement from anybody, the statements are made that this most likely is, in fact, explosives. Why it would be in vials I have no idea.

April 4, 2003 - Straitstimes.com news report of troops finding chemical weapons cache at Al qa'qaa, but no mention of explosives stores:

Straitstimes.com

AP report on drumbeat on April 4, 2003 that the troops found "thousands of 2" by 5" boxes, each containing three vials of white powder". Quoted a "senior U.S. official" stating it was believed to be explosives.

AP Report on drumbeat

Washington post article on 4/4/03 finding of white powder at al Qa'qaa the next day which quotes a source as saying it is most likely explosives.

Wash Post

But there is the possibility that when the special units arrived to take over the facility from the Marines, that there had already been insufficient security between 4/4/03 and 4/10/03 and the explosives had been removed.

Report from UNMOVIC (UN Monitoring, Verification and Inpsection Commission) on weapons, ammo of concern to be monitored in Iraq - no mention of high-explosives or Al Qa'qaa (Aug 27, 2004) If it were so damned important, why didn't they mention it here?

www.un.org... 2004-693.pdf+iaea+AND+%22inspect%22+AND+report++AND+iraq&ie=utf8&site=un_org&output=xm l_no_dtd&client=un_org&access=p&num=10&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fsearc h%2Fun_org_stylesheet.xslt&oe=utf8" target="_blank" class="postlink">UNMOVIC

Report on Oct. 6, 2004, that the al Qa'Qaa complex had been "left unguarded" and that the insurgents in the area were most likely creating IEDs from the ammunition looted from the facility.

www.williambowles.info...

Just a few more things I wanted to point out that are in the documents:

1. They definitely were pressing shaped charges at Al Qa'qaa.

2. All HMX was imported and the sanctions had frozen the stock...so it either remained the same (228 tonnes) or decreased (when the Iraqi's "used" 32 tonnes).

3. They were producing their own RDX at Al Qa'qaa.

I think the substance in the viles was RDX...I don't think it was HMX...that's my personal deduction.

[edit on 10-26-2004 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall
EVERYBODY is spinning; EVERYBODY is misleading; EVERYTHING being said by EVERYBODY

IS POLITICAL because EVERYBODY involved in this is dirty in one way or the other.

I like your attitude.

How's TPM doing blogging it? He's certainly debunking at least half of the spinning. The "right" half I might add.

Just a resource for you.

I'm on to the next Bush scandal. Got $70 billion?

In light of recent news regarding the explosives, the main story has been updated.

uhhhh....Fred????

I sure don't agree with that.

We have no idea when the 228 tonnes came up missing. It could have been anytime past the inventorying in December 2002...including after April 10, 2003.

All I was trying to point out is that:

1. It appears there could have been insufficient security to prevent the HMX being stolen once under the auspices of the US.

2. The IAEA is full of fake sincerity and lost 32 tonnes all by their lonesome.

3. There is no proof that they were squalking about this HMX.

4. The fact they left it from 1993 until the invasion in bunkers they proclaimed insecure and unsafe pretty much destroys their claims at "being concerned"...they didn't care during that time!

5. It's all political.

6. We might have been the ones who let it get stolen.

I have to agree with Valhall in general, and just add my impression that this "news" is nothing more than a questionably-timed, questionably-motivated and questionably-conceived media spectacle that appears to be backfiring on its perpetrators.

Seems pretty pathetic by "October Surprise" standards. Presumably each side has more dirt waiting for the right moment of release.

Perhaps this was a pre-emptive strike to try to blunt whatever dirt is about to come out.

Whatever it is, this business reeks of deceit.

Come on people, 380 Tons???! Not even Houdini could have pulled this tric off.
Just some good ol' fashion scare tactics from mr. president!