380 TONS? or 3 Tons?

[gothmog]

Additional footage shows the IAEA seals that were on the doors of the bunkers where the 380 tons of explosives were stored. http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=1

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."

It appears that video mentioned earlier is that of the bunkers where the explosives were stored. This means that the explosives were there when Saddam felled and the US took over. In addition, from can be determined from the footage, there was a large number of bunkers with seals and explosives which should lay to rest the silly concept that there was only 3 tons.

 

[gothmog]

ABC ran the video tonghit on the national news. It appears that the tapes are legit and that it is now clear that there were more than three tons of high explosives at the site in question after the fall og Bagdah.

ABC also ran the Rudy G comments where the GOP blamed the troops for failing to secure the site in question. The comments on Senator Edwards and Gen. Wes Clark were right on point today.

 

[peachgirl]

<center><IMG width="300"SRC="http://kstp.com/kstpimages/IAEA-seal_011.jpg"></center>

<center><IMG width="300"SRC="http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-QaQaa-pix_10.jpg"></center>

<center>Seals used by the IAEA (top). A seal on an Iraqi bunker door videotaped by a 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew on April 18, 2003 (bottom).</center>

Pretty tough to argue that they were moved before Bush ordered the invasion with pics like this. I had heard the comments Rudy was sent out to make today. Who is it that isn't supporting our troops?

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by peachgirl
<center><IMG width="300"SRC="http://kstp.com/kstpimages/IAEA-seal_011.jpg"></center>

<center><IMG width="300"SRC="http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-QaQaa-pix_10.jpg"></center>

<center>Seals used by the IAEA (top). A seal on an Iraqi bunker door videotaped by a 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew on April 18, 2003 (bottom).</center>

Pretty tough to argue that they were moved before Bush ordered the invasion with pics like this. I had heard the comments Rudy was sent out to make today. Who is it that isn't supporting our troops?

Then perhaps you were aware that there were ventilation ducts and shafts that were easily accessible so that the "seals" really didn't seal a thing. And perhaps you saw the Pentagon sat. photos of truck movement before the war.

 

[manchurianbrownbear]

gothmog,

Are you a fellow Minnesotan?

I happened to be watching KSTP TV Eyewitness News last night (which is really unusual since, with their ratings circling the drain, they've relied much more heavily on "sensational journalism") and saw the story you've referred to in your posts.

At the end of the story, the anchor said emphatically, the footage MAY OR MAY NOT have been shot at the Al Qaqaa facility where 380 (or 3) tons was stored. They don't even know for sure where the facility in the story is located! But it's POSSIBLE that it could be the same the facility that has been in the national news this week! That's responsible journalism!

On KSTP AM radio this morning (a Republican leaning station ) an explosives expert (I'll admit, I can't vouch for his expertise) said the explosives and fuses shown in the story were the type used in clearing rock in construction projects, not the more dangerous kind that were referred to in the NYT story this week. I wouldn't draw a conclusion based solely on this expert's opinion, but since KSTP TV's information on the facility was really misleading, I'm reluctant to believe that these explosives were those favored by the military, or by terrorists.

 

[gothmog]

ABC has shown the video and believes that it shows the explosives still on location after the fall Bagdah. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847

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 U.N. markings on the barrels are clear.

"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.

The material was there and is now gone. Bush has put our troops in danger by first not ordering the troops to secure critical sites such as the amno dumps and then not providing enough troops to do the job. As a result, our troops are in more danger due to Bush's poor leadership.

 

[Geoff_M]

As a result, our troops are in more danger due to Bush's poor leadership.

...and the soldiers are so mad about it they're set to overwhelmingly vote for the man.

And about that lack of adequate troops in Iraq... How many more troops has Kerry said he's going to send over there to fix this problem?

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
...and the soldiers are so mad about it they're set to overwhelmingly vote for the man.

And about that lack of adequate troops in Iraq... How many more troops has Kerry said he's going to send over there to fix this problem?

Furthermore, where is he going to get them? I wonder if he is considering a draft?

 

[disney4us2002]

Originally posted by gothmog
ABC ..............

Just wanted to say Welcome to the Dis!!

You have been a very busy poster, 26 posts all today.

 

[Olaf]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
Furthermore, where is he going to get them? I wonder if he is considering a draft?

I'd say it's fair bet to say that he won't be getting them from the Young Democrats.

 

[gothmog]

Laz

You asked for backup for the fact that we went into Iraq without sufficient troops. This is well known but here is some back up. See http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=38990

...Failed to Send Enough Troops to Do the Job in Iraq...

General Zinni: "Everybody In The Military" Knew That "We Would Need 300,000 Troops To Pacify Iraq." "Recently, the Army chief of staff (Shinseki) testified that we would need 300,000 troops to pacify Iraq. Everybody in the military knew he was right. But the party line down from the Pentagon decreed that the number was half that, and he was pilloried." (Zinni, Battle Ready, p. 426)

General Abizaid Said He Had Asked for More Troops. "Do I have enough troops in Iraq for the current circumstances? Clearly, I asked for more troops. The 1st Armored Division and the 2nd Armory Cavalry Regiment were on their way home. And I asked that we up the number of forces in the country so that we could have a mobile reserve to deal with the conditions that were developing in the Fallujah area and down in the Najaf-Karbala area." (CENTCOM Briefing, 4/30/04)

Bremer: "The One Thing That Would Have Improved The Situation- Would Have Been Having More Troops In Iraq." "The single most important change -- the one thing that would have improved the situation -- would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout..." (Paul Bremer, 9/16/04)

General Shinseki: "Something On The Order Of Several Hundred Thousand Soldiers." Would Be Required To Win The Peace in Iraq. "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." (Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, 2/25/03)....

...And Had No Plan To Win The Peace

George Bush Rushed To War With No Plan To Win The Peace. In August 2003, the Joint Chiefs of Staff prepared a secret report assessing the post-war planning for Iraq. The report blamed "setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process." It also said "planners were not given enough time" to plan for reconstruction. A New York Times report found that, "A yearlong State Department study predicted many of the problems that have plagued the American-led occupation of Iraq." The study was produced by experts on Iraq from various fields, yet "several officials said that many of the findings in the $5 million study were ignored by Pentagon officials" until after the war. Several administration officials and Bush himself have admitted to a "miscalculation" of what postwar conditions would be. David Kay, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, believes the administration's plans for locating and securing Iraqi WMD were "practically useless" and it was "not a task that the military planned to take on or gave a high priority to." (Washington Times, 9/3/03, emphasis added; New York Times, 10/19/03; NYT, 8/27/04; Powell Interview, BBC Television, 6/24/04; Arms Control Today, 4/04)

There is a great deal of information out there on how Rumsfeld and Bush ignored the advice of the Pentagon and went to war without proper planning or enough troops. The results of this failure to plan and Bush's refusal to follow the advice of the Pentagon is the quagmire in Iraq.

Bush truly failed as a leader in Iraq. He failed to plan and failed to protect our troops by sending an inadequate number in against the advice of the Pentagon. It is clear that advice of General Shinseki has been proven correct as evidence by the looting and quagmire that we find ourselfs in Iraq.

 

[Nancy]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
Furthermore, where is he going to get them? I wonder if he is considering a draft?

He's going to pull 40,000 troops out of thin air. (60,000 if you count the 20,000 special ops)

 

[Geoff_M]

Wow, a Kerry press release as evidence...

I ask again, if everything is so FUBAR'ed in Iraq, then why are the guys and gals whose lives are in the balance so much in favor of re-electing the guy whose "failed" leadership has, in your opinion, put them so much at risk? Why is it that things are so lopsided that Kerry, who by the way served in Vietnam, has not met with soldiers on the campaign trail? A Lexis search reportedly only shows this on example of Kerry putting in an appearance at a military installation:

Following the rally, Kerry visited former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman John Shalikashvili, who suffered a stroke shortly after the Democratic convention and is in a hospital in Fort Lewis, Wash. The retired Army general, an adviser to the Kerry campaign, had endorsed the candidate at the convention.

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0804/169261.html

And again, how many troops has Kerry said he will get to Iraq ASAP to address the lack of proper troop levels that he likes to talk about???

General Tommy Franks today at a rally in Ohio:

GENERAL FRANKS: Well, what a treat it is to be in northern Ohio. (Applause.) Indeed, it's an honor to be standing here today with you. You know, I'm not a politician, but I know what a Commander-in-Chief looks like, and there's only one on this ballot -- that's George Bush. (Applause.)

You know, I would guess by the enthusiasm that I see represented here today that victory is headed our way in just about five days. (Applause.) If you think about character, if you think about courage, if you think about consistency, if you think about honesty, you think about George W. Bush. (Applause.) If you talk about a leader who knows something about the global war on terrorism, it would be George W. Bush, and he knows it's global. (Applause.)

You're talking about a leader who knows that terrorism has been more than a nuisance for more than two decades. (Applause.) You're talking about a leader who does not want to roll back terrorism to the times of Beirut in 1983, Khobar Towers in the mid-1990s, East Africa in 1998, the USS Cole in the year 2000, and doesn't want to roll it back to 9/11/01. Terrorism is not a nuisance. (Applause.)

George W. Bush is a leader who knew that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world and to the United States of America, and removed him from power. (Applause.) George W. Bush is a leader who knows that our troops, as of right now, have cleared 10,000 ammunition and weapons sites in Iraq. He knows that they have destroyed 240,000 tons of munitions in Iraq. He knows that they have under control -- (applause) -- he knows that they have under control another 162,000 tons of munitions in Iraq. We're talking about George W. Bush who knows, who understands that we do not yet have all the facts about 380 tons of munitions in Iraq. And he is a President who will look at you and say, we don't yet have the facts, but we will get the facts. George W. Bush. (Applause.)

In George W. Bush, you're talking about a leader who does not step out every day of his life and make more wild accusations. You're talking about a leader who actually cares about our troops, about their families, and about our veterans. You're talking about a leader who actually respects all those who serve our country with dignity and with honor. You're talking about George W. Bush. (Applause.)

The past three years have been hard years for America. The past three years have been a tough time for our country. I've looked into the eyes of our President, my Commander-in-Chief, and I have seen that character, that courage, that consistency that I just described. It's the courage that it takes to win a war, not tie one. And we have to win the war against terrorism in this country. (Applause.)

Now, I'll tell you, I don't know Senator Kerry's plan for victory. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is, but I do know -- but I do know that his criticism of military conduct of our global war on terrorism denigrates, disrespects our troops. (Applause.) And, ladies and gentlemen, I also know that he cannot lead troops to victory in a war when he has made it perfectly clear that he does not support the cause. (Applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, this is going to be a close election, and every vote counts. Those who wear the uniform of service of the United States of America deserve a Commander-in-Chief, and it's my honor to introduce one -- President George W. Bush. (Applause.)

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
Then perhaps you were aware that there were ventilation ducts and shafts that were easily accessible so that the "seals" really didn't seal a thing. And perhaps you saw the Pentagon sat. photos of truck movement before the war.

And perhaps you're aware of the fact that the film shows the explosives?

ABC said experts who have studied the images say the barrels seen in the video contain the high explosive HMX, and U.N. markings on the sealed containers were clear.

 

[gothmog]

Dawn

You need to stop getting bad information from the Free Republic and Drudge. The satellite photos that you were so proud of are bogus and show the trucks in the wrong part of the facility. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al_qa_qaa-imagery4.htm

The International Atomic Energy Association inspectors identified bunkers in this complex as containing High Melting Explosive. According to the IAEA Action Report on the facility, the HMX was being stored in only nine bunkers at the site. All of the HMX bunkers were sealed by the IAEA after verification, using metal seals on the front entrance doors.

DoD released on Oct. 28, 2004, imagery showing two trucks parked outside one of the 56 bunkers of the Al Qa Qaa Explosive Storage Complex approximately 20 miles south of Baghdad, Iraq, on March 17, 2003. According to the release: "It is not believed that all 56 bunkers contained High Melting Explosive also known as HMX. A large, tractor-trailer (yellow arrow) is loaded with white containers with a smaller truck parked behind it.

However, 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.

The satellite photos that you are so proud of are just wrong. In order to move the materials in question, they would have to go to one of the bunkers that actually contained the explosives in questions.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by snarfer1
Come on ThAnswer, you I know have intellectual honesty, not playing tit-for-tat, isn't their anything lately that you're not happy with relating to Kerry or the DNC? You know I have admitted problems with Bush in the past, and most of us evil right-wing nut jobs have proven our sense of humour, even at the expense of our canidate, come on step up to the plate!

Thank you for your kind words, Tony.

Is there anything lately that I'm not happy with relating to Kerry or the DNC? Quite honestly, not really.

And I'm sorry you didn't like my little play on words about "Al-Qaqaa is turning out to be the caca hitting the fan for Bush".

Originally posted by snarfer1
P.S. The CBS original plan to air this the Sunday before the election doesn't seem 'unfair' to you at all?

Not one blessed bit! Unfair to who? Should politicians get a by simple because they're up for reelection and the election is close?

This isn't an opinion piece like Farenheit 911. It is a legitmate news story and goes to the heart of one the most important issues of our time; the war in Iraq and how it's been conducted.

George Bush and his administration are responsible for this war. If some of the facts presented make them look bad or may cause someone to reevaluate their vote, tough comes with the territory.

Everyone has to decide for themselves whether the controversy over the missing explosives is just another event in the war on terror or symptomatic of the type of planning that has caused the strategic disaster in Iraq.

Let me pose a question to you. If bad decisions have been made in Iraq (and they have) don't the American people have the right to know about them before they cast their votes?

Now, if the October surprise turned out to be another BS report about a DWI or something like that from 30 years ago, then I'd say it was unfair. But not this story from Iraq.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by gothmog
The latest drudge fiction/departure from reality is contradicted by actual video from an US news crew who visted the site before it was looted. http://www.kstptv5.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=64
There were clearly more than three tons on the video and the materials were not secured even though the military knew about these materials.

Hmm...


"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.

The footage is now in the hands of security experts to see if it is indeed the explosives in question. "

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
...and the soldiers are so mad about it they're set to overwhelmingly vote for the man.

And about that lack of adequate troops in Iraq... How many more troops has Kerry said he's going to send over there to fix this problem?

Wait a minute. I thought that according to Kerry we had TOO MANY troops in Iraq and that was taking from the effort to look for OBL. Which is it? Not enough, or too many?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by peachgirl
<center><IMG width="300"SRC="http://kstp.com/kstpimages/IAEA-seal_011.jpg"></center>

<center><IMG width="300"SRC="http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-QaQaa-pix_10.jpg"></center>

<center>Seals used by the IAEA (top). A seal on an Iraqi bunker door videotaped by a 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew on April 18, 2003 (bottom).</center>

Pretty tough to argue that they were moved before Bush ordered the invasion with pics like this. I had heard the comments Rudy was sent out to make today. Who is it that isn't supporting our troops?

So exactly HOW were 380 TONS of munitions moved AFTER the place was crawling with coaltion forces and nobody saw it? Considering it would take days, of not weeks to pull it off. Answer that plausibly and I'll give you your October Surprise.

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by dmadman43
So exactly HOW were 380 TONS of munitions moved AFTER the place was crawling with coaltion forces and nobody saw it? Considering it would take days, of not weeks to pull it off. Answer that plausibly and I'll give you your October Surprise.

Thats the thing, it wasn't crawling with coalition.