Missing explosives [This kind of sucks]

[ChrisGwinn]

Hey, he did it while I was posting. Good job.

[ChrisGwinn]

Oh wait, you wanted video. Go here: http://www.kstp.com/ They've been putting more up all day.

And I thought my local newscasts just did reporting on drive-bys and the hidden dangers of household items.

[triggercut]

With all respect, RM9 looks like me trying to justify that the CBS Rather memos were legit.

In any event, I think the President's Men calculated this badly. They tried to play it like Rathergate, but had to change their story four times now (the latest is satellite photos released by the DoD earlier today that show a single truck at a bunker on March 17. Unfortunately, that bunker was nowhere near the HMX bunkers. Fie on facts...) This story got some legs, and then with each debunking of an "official" story, it got sturdier and sturdier. Tomorrow it enters its fifth day in the news cycle, and cements a week that wasn't so hot, news-wise, for the President.

[Dogstar]

While I certainly applaud US forces for securing the other 400,000 tons or however much it is, and I realize that's a big job in a country as large as Iraq, the fact that the stuff went missing raises two key issues.

1) Seeing as how it doesn't take much of the stuff to make significant bombs, any amount that doesn't get secured is a threat. And even 100 tons of the stuff, while not large overall (compared to the total amount to be secured), is more than enough to keep the resistance going for awhile. Thus, the small amount remains a very large problem. So to raise a big cheer that we got the other 400,000 tons doesn't mean much when the next roadside bomb goes off and kills and/or wounds another bunch of our guys. And that happens the next day. And the day after that. And well on into the forseeable future.

2) If what's on the video is indeed explosives, and it's now gone, it certainly gives credence to the argument that we didn't have enough troops there to secure the peace. I don't know if you catch Frontline a lot, but there was an excellent piece the other night on the Iraq war and troop levels. Both the Secretary of the Army and General Shinseki argued vigorously that we needed more troops to secure Iraq once the invasion was over. They were overruled by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, and by extension, Bush. If we didn't have enough troops to guard that bunker, could anyone please tell me exactly where the fault lies? (or lays, I can never keep those two straight. )

[RunningMn9]

No, if this works the way it normally does, RM9 will come up with some way to interpret the video of the explosives as conclusive evidence that the explosives were not there. You doubted he could do it with the 9/11 report, you didn't see any way he could pull it out with the Duelfer report, but he's managed to surprise us every time.

It looks like we get to test out the new "Pleasant" filter today.

Let's hold on a second, right there. I'm more than comfortable acknowledging that video of some barrels of white stuff is really some barrels of explosives. But I still have several problems (and in reality, this is just the "critical thinking" cap talking - I'm no longer convinced that losing 0.0375% of the "stuff" we needed to secure is indicative of the wholesale failure of the President).

1) Seeing video of barrels of white stuff is not the equivalent of proof that the complex was holding 377/149/3/X TONS of RDX/HMX. Seeing video of barrels of white stuff is proof that soldiers did indeed find some number of barrels of white stuff. I can even go so far as to say that the barrels were one of the two nastys in question. The QUANTITY of nasty stuff in the compound, either on the occassion of the 3ID (who claims to have not done a thorough examination of the compound), or the occassion of the 101st Airborne (who claims to have not done a thorough examination of the compound) is of some importance here if we are trying to determine WHEN some/all of the explosives were relocated.

2) Some/All of the seals being intact when either of the above US military units showed up is no longer reason to suspect that the "sealed" rooms still held all of their contents. According to some of the evidence presented, inspectors had not been inside the rooms since July of 2002, and the seals don't really appear to be all that effective at sealing anything in.

3) There was a HELLUVA lot of military in that area during and after the invasion. That would make it exceptionally difficult to transport the goods out in a convoy capable of carrying some number of tons of this crap.

4) One curious question would be this. Since the Pentagon has reported that a good deal of nasty crap WAS secured at the AQQ complex, where is the video of our military finding that nasty crap? If we found explosives at the site, which we claim we did. And there are missing explosives from the site, which we acknowledge, and allege wasn't there when we got there. And we have video of the military looking at explosives...what's the easiest conclusion? That this is video of the explosives we didn't find? Or the explosives we said we found? But which are the 0.0375% of the explosives we had to secure, that was news more than a year ago but which suddenly is crucial news again.

Not to mention that one of your last blockbuster quotes is from a guy who talked to a friend who thinks it could be the same stuff. That's almost as airtight as the "Russia Drove Them Away!!!" evidence.

But to your original snotty, and childish post. That I tend to look at these things more objectively than you is not a slight on my abilities. Unless you're going to tell me again that they 9/11 Commission report told you that there are no links between Iraq and AQ...

And I've never talked about the Duelfer report here - other than to note CNN's curious sanitization of their article on it, after publishing a balanced article that had meat for both campaigns.

You get my first use of the at OO for this. Nay, you get two.

[triggercut]

Transcript of David Kay on Newsnight with Aaron Brown tonight:

Aaron Brown: We saw at the top of the program there is new information to factor in. Pretty conclusive to our eye. So we'll sort through this now. Take the politics out of it and try and deal with facts with former head UN weapons inspector, US weapons inspector, David Kay. David, it’s nice to see you.

David Kay: Good to be with you, Aaron.

AB: I don't know how better to do this than to show you some pictures have you explain to me what they are or are not. Okay? First what I’ll just call the seal. And tell me if this is an IAEA seal on that bunker at that munitions dump?

DK: Aaron, about as certain as I can be looking at a picture, not physically holding it which, obviously, I would have preferred to have been there, that is an IAEA seal. I've never seen anything else in Iraq in about 15 years of being in Iraq and around Iraq that was other than an IAEA seal of that shape.

AB: Was there anything else at the facility that would have been under IAEA seal?

DK: Absolutely nothing. It was the HMX, RDX, the two high explosives.

AB: OK now, I’ll take a look at barrels here for a second. You can tell me what they tell you. They, obviously, to us just show us a bunch of barrels. You'll see it somewhat differently.

DK: Well, it's interesting. There were three foreign suppliers to Iraq of this explosive in the 1980s. One of them used barrels like this, and inside the barrels a bag. HMX is in powder form because you actually use it to shape a spherical lens that is used to create the triggering device for nuclear weapons. And particularly on the videotape, which is actually better than the still photos, as the soldier dips into it, that's either HMX or RDX. I don't know of anything else in al Qaqaa that was in that form.

AB: Let me ask you then, David, the question I asked Jamie. In regard to the dispute about whether that stuff was there when the Americans arrived, is it game, set, match? Is that part of the argument now over?

DK: Well, at least with regard to this one bunker, and the film shows one seal, one bunker, one group of soldiers going through, and there were others there that were sealed. With this one, I think it is game, set, and match. There was HMX, RDX in there. The seal was broken. And quite frankly, to me the most frightening thing is not only was the seal broken, lock broken, but the soldiers left after opening it up. I mean, to rephrase the so-called pottery barn rule. If you open an arms bunker, you own it. You have to provide security.

AB: I'm -- that raises a number of questions. Let me throw out one. It suggests that maybe they just didn't know what they had?

DK: I think you're quite likely they didn't know they had HMX, which speaks to lack of intelligence given troops moving through that area, but they certainly knew they had explosives. And to put this in context, I think it's important, this loss of 360 tons, but Iraq is awash with tens of thousands of tons of explosives right now in the hands of insurgents because we did not provide the security when we took over the country.

AB: Could you -- I’m trying to stay out of the realm of politics. I'm not sure you can.

DK: So am I.

AB: I know. It's a little tricky here. But, is there any -- is there any reason not to have anticipated the fact that there would be bunkers like this, explosives like this, and a need to secure them?

DK: Absolutely not. For example, al Qaqaa was a site of Gerald Bull's super gun project. It was a team of mine that discovered the HMX originally in 1991. That was one of the most well-documented explosive sites in all of Iraq. The other 80 or so major ammunition storage points were also well documented. Iraq had, and it's a frightening number, two-thirds of the total conventional explosives that the US has in its entire inventory. The country was an armed camp.

AB: David, as quickly as you can, because this just came up in the last hour, as dangerous as this stuff is, this would not be described as a WMD, correct?

DK: Oh absolutely not.

AB: Thank you.

DK: And, in fact, the loss of it is not a proliferation issue.

AB: Okay. It's just dangerous and its out there and by your thinking it should have been secured.

DK: Well look, it was used to bring the Pan Am flight down. It's a very dangerous explosive, particularly in the hands of terrorists.

AB: David, thank you for walking me through this. I appreciate it, David Kay the former head US weapons inspector in Iraq.

BTW--the most relevant thing that Kay says is that it isn't so much the 380 tons of explosives, its what it represents about how the Administration managed the war, and failed to listen to anyone else from outside their immediate circle when they tried to offer advice and warnings about what to expect in Iraq.

[RunningMn9]

2) If what's on the video is indeed explosives, and it's now gone, it certainly gives credence to the argument that we didn't have enough troops there to secure the peace.

This is the sort of thing that seriously sticks in my craw about people like CG above (and now you).

What did I say earlier in the thread? My goal in this thread is NOT to defend the President on this. I don't care. Perhaps everyone here is used to the general "If you don't agree with teh liberals, you must be defending Bush!!!" bullshit. But I'm not.

The reason I draw a point to this is that very early on - I stated specifically that if this shit was here after the invasion, and it was looted by nefarious hijackers because we didn't have enough boots on the ground - then this is actually a very good case for the "You didn't have enough troops to win the peace" argument.

Why did I say that? Because simply having 50,000 more troops in Iraq right now wouldn't do jack squat, other than put 50,000 more US troops in harm's way. BUT, if one can demonstrate specific instances where we needed to secure a spot (like AQQ) but we couldn't, because we were guarding museums, or other high-priority places (that was sarcasm if you didn't get it) - then that makes for a more compelling argument than simply yelling "MORE TROOPS".

The problem, of course, is that there are a helluva lot of people claiming first hand knowledge (or knowing some guy who knew another guy) which are offering very conflicting timelines.

You all seem convinced that this is an example of Presidential incompetence, or that the voters are going to care about it.

I still see this as either a non-issue (again, since we claimed that we found explosives at AQQ, I'm not particularly swayed by video of some barrels of explosives that some guy's aunt's uncle's cousin's neice's best friend's brother thinks "looks like they could be the same barrels"), a minor issue (considering that we had to expect that we would lost SOME of Saddam's weapon's caches, and considering that - losing 0.0375% of the explosives hardly seems like a failure to me), or finally some concrete examples for how the situation has been negatively impacted by not having enough boots on the ground.

Nor do I think this will have legs outside of the people that are already voting for Kerry. The story is more than a year old for crying out loud.

We brought this back to the forefront because the Iraqis reported twice as much missing as we'd ever inventoried there? And that's news?

It smells of partisan hackery.

Speaking of which...trig, you're running out of time on your October Surprise prediction.

[RunningMn9]

BTW--the most relevant thing that Kay says is that it isn't so much the 380 tons of explosives, its what it represents about how the Administration managed the war, and failed to listen to anyone else from outside their immediate circle when they tried to offer advice and warnings about what to expect in Iraq.

Hooray! That's much better. Transcripts from David Kay are something that I'll take at face value.

But I do have two questions...

1) We're back up to 380 tons? Do we know how much of the 380 tons was present when these soldiers were going through?

2) I must have read a different transcript. Which answer to which question talks about how the Administration failed to listen to anyone else from outside their immediate circle when they tried to offer advice and warnings about what to expect in Iraq.

Where was that?

[Meghan]

According to other evidence presented in this thread - the last time this stuff was seen prior to the invasion was in July of 2002, when it was declared and sealed.

The other evidence to which you're refering is incorrect.

Here is the AP article which I originally linked to on page 1.

According to Melissa Fleming, IAEA spokesperson

IAEA inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003 when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers, Fleming said. Inspectors visited the site again in March 2003, but didn't view the explosives because the seals were not broken, she said.

re your two other questions

We're back up to 380 tons? Do we know how much of the 380 tons was present when these soldiers were going through?

Frankly unless you have proof that some of it was taken (and by whom) I think this is irrelevant speculation.

We know the barrels were there, sealed. We know there were 380 tons of it. We know some of it was under US care at one time. We know it's gone.

If you want to say someone else took some of it - pony up your proof.

2. I don't recognize the transcript you're asking about. If you find it let us know.

And regarding your response to AlanM - I do make that connection and I do think the glaring incompetance and stubborness here is completely relevant in next week's election. I recognize that you don't but - I certainly do. I suspect lots of other people will too.

[RunningMn9]

The other evidence to which you're refering is incorrect.

Because your link says so? Their link says that your evidence is incorrect. When someone posts a link that counters the evidence that your original link provided, how far do you think you are going to get by linking me back to the original article they claim to contradict?

Now what? Should I just re-link you to ND's article that contradicts you and declare victory?

Frankly unless you have proof that some of it was taken (and by whom) I think this is irrelevant speculation.

I beg your pardon? I would think that if someone is going to accuse the Administration of complete incompetence over the loss of this explosives, one might think that they have the burden of proof on them to show that ALL of the 380 tons of explosives was there.

Why is that important? Because there are two possible issues here. One is what David Kay laid out. Regardless of how much explosives the soldiers in the video found - they should not have walked away, leaving it unguarded.

That's a valid point - you'll get no argument from me. But, unlike you - I begin by blaming the soldiers themselves. If they were under orders to move along, no matter what they found, then blame shifts to their superiors. And so on. That's why I inquired about the directives handed down to the commanders in the field. Without knowing that, you have no idea why they were left unguarded.

And perhaps you and I differ on whether or not more important things could have been afoot than these explosives.

The other issue is whether or not enough of the explosives were present when we got there to warrant very serious consideration by the forces for permanent security. If all they saw was the barrels, and those barrels aren't anything close to 380 tons of explosives (let's say 1 ton) - perhaps they made the call that it wasn't worth protecting in light of the other 400,000 tons of nastiness that needed protecting?

I don't know. All I'm doing is failing to jump to the conclusion you want me to based on incomplete information. Or conflicting information, as the case may be.

We know the barrels were there, sealed.

We know that some barrels were "sealed" in one bunker. I'll give you that.

We know there were 380 tons of it.

I've seen like seven different numbers, just today. Which is it?

We know some of it was under US care at one time. We know it's gone.

This is a question I asked earlier. Which David Kay answered. We know that those barrels are missing. And we can begin to figure out why they are missing.

Let's start with the orders the soldiers received that resulted in them leaving the place unguarded (or the intelligence failures that led to them not knowing what they found).

Do you have copies of those orders or intelligence reports?

If you want to say someone else took some of it - pony up your proof.

I haven't seen any evidence that anyone in particular took it. I've simply seen evidence that some amount of the stuff was there, and now it's not. I've seen lots of different timelines, but I've yet to see that we identified the perps.

2. I don't recognize the transcript you're asking about. If you find it let us know.

?? The only transcript I was referring to was the transcript that triggercut just posted.

And regarding your response to AlanM - I do make that connection and I do think the glaring incompetance and stubborness here is completely relevant in next week's election. I recognize that you don't but - I certainly do. I suspect lots of other people will too.

Well, one of us is likely to be very surprised come Wednesday morning then. Here's hoping it's you.

And I think that you are referring to my response to trig, where I was responding to the transcript he posted.

My response to AndyM was about how from the beginning I've been open to concluding that this incident will bolster one or more arguments that Bush fuct up. However - considering the recent behavior of some media outlets and a propensity for the liberal hordes to latch on to half-baked information in a way that would make Matt Drudge blush - I remained (and continue to remain) skeptical of the issue.

Blame Dan Rather.

[noxiousdog]

This is ridiculous. 12 months ago there was whining because Saddam didn't have any weapons. Now there is hand-wringing because he did.

There just isn't any satisfying some people.

I'm too tired to address anything else tonight.

[Dogstar]

RM9-

I honestly do apologize. I wasn't trying to lump you in with some of the posters on here that will defend the President at all costs. If you care to scroll back, I've changed the wording to reflect that it was supposed to be an open question directed to anyone, not just to you.

I'm going to have to take the side that this is an issue that has some momentum, for the reasons discussed earlier. The post-war planning and troop levels have always been somewhat suspect given all that's happened. Now, with this, the next time there's a report of a car bomb in Iraq, Americans have to wonder if it isn't some of the material from Al Qa Qaa, and if we could have prevented it.

To be fair, it's not like Bush himself inspected the complex and then walked away from it. However, some iota of responsibility, if there weren't enough troops to stay behind to guard it, has to lay with Rumsfeld. Despite poor post-war planning ("freedom is messy") and the public relations disaster of Abu Gharaib, Rumsfeld managed to keep his job. That's Bush's decision. So by extension, by not firing him and limiting the political fallout, it's now spread to Bush. I don't think I'm out of line in stating that a fair amount of people consider Iraq as Bush's war, and thus ownership of both the successes and the failures reside with him.

[Snow]

What about the end end of the January 2003 IAEA report that states that the seals were effectively not effective?

"Of note was that the sealing on the bunkers was only partially effective because each bunker had ventilation shafts on the sides of the buildings. These shafts were not sealed, and could provide removal routes for the HMX while leaving the front door locked

What about the newly declassified satellite photes showing tractor trailers parked outside of bunkers a couple of days prior to invasion?



This is not proof that these trucks moved explosives, but it is proof that there were BIG trucks at the facility, parked outside bunkers while Sadam was in power. Now taken in conjunction with the Dalfur Report and satellites photos contained in it that show massive movement of trucks to Syria before the invasion, I know where my skeptical mind tends to lean.

[triggercut]

This is ridiculous. 12 months ago there was whining because Saddam didn't have any weapons. Now there is hand-wringing because he did.

There just isn't any satisfying some people.

I'm too tired to address anything else tonight.

Allow me to quote a relevent passage from Aaron Brown and David Kay, again for you .

AB: David, as quickly as you can, because this just came up in the last hour, as dangerous as this stuff is, this would not be described as a WMD, correct?

DK: Oh absolutely not.


I don't think any of us thought Saddam didn't have weapons. We're looking for WMD. As Mr. Kay says, as dangerous as HMX is, it doesn't qualify.

[triggercut]

What about the end end of the January 2003 IAEA report that states that the seals were effectively not effective?

"Of note was that the sealing on the bunkers was only partially effective because each bunker had ventilation shafts on the sides of the buildings. These shafts were not sealed, and could provide removal routes for the HMX while leaving the front door locked

What about the newly declassified satellite photes showing tractor trailers parked outside of bunkers a couple of days prior to invasion?



This is not proof that these trucks moved explosives, but it is proof that there were BIG trucks at the facility, parked outside bunkers while Sadam was in power. Now taken in conjunction with the Daulfur Report and satellites photos contained in it that show massive movement of trucks to Syria before the invasion, I know where my skeptical mind tends to lean.

Let's take a look.

Here's a map of AQQ, courtesy of IAEA, reprinted at globalsecurity.org:



Here's the satellite presented today by the DoD, linked by Snow here, with the map legend superimposed over it.



The two bunkers with trucks and some possible loading/unloading activity are at the two bunkers at the furthest right corner of the satellite picture. Easier to see that here:



So, it appears that there wasn't any truck loading/unloading activity outside an HMX bunker.

This would seem to jibe with the hard evidence on the ABC News tape showing stuff like soldiers breaking IAEA seals, opening up intact bunkers, and finding loads of corrugated barrels filled with white powder marked "explosive".

Wouldn't it?

(Edited for snarkiness.)

[Poleaxe]

But a satellite photo is only a snapshot. Perhaps if the timing were better we would see trucks outside of different bunkers.

As for the effect on the election, my guess is zilch. We have differing reports from different news organizations. Normal people (not us), don't have a week to devote to a story as competing organizations hash out the truth of it. Normal people (not us), don't read blogs.

[Meghan]

The other evidence to which you're refering is incorrect.

Because your link says so? Their link says that your evidence is incorrect. When someone posts a link that counters the evidence that your original link provided, how far do you think you are going to get by linking me back to the original article they claim to contradict?

Now what? Should I just re-link you to ND's article that contradicts you and declare victory?

Nope. I'm correct because the subject is "When did the IAEA last see those explosives?"

On my side, I'm quoting the IAEA spokesperson on the IAEA schedule. The IAEA says they were there in January and March. The IAEA would know what their schedule was.

If you can prove that the IAEA spokesperson was just lying through her teeth when she spoke to the AP reporter last Monday, let's hear it.

OH! I just found this - this is handy. It's a timeline of events. Scroll down to about the middle of the page. It's on MSNBC but it's compiled by AP. They don't have the update of the April 18th report yet but the rest is good. They note the IAEA visits in 1/03 7 3/03 that I've been citing.

Frankly unless you have proof that some of it was taken (and by whom) I think this is irrelevant speculation.

I beg your pardon? I would think that if someone is going to accuse the Administration of complete incompetence over the loss of this explosives, one might think that they have the burden of proof on them to show that ALL of the 380 tons of explosives was there.

Nope. We know there was 380 tons of the stuff there. We know it's not there now. We know that eye witnesses & video shows the US soldiers cutting open IAEA seals and leaving stuff unguarded although it was supposedly in their care.

If you have anything else - if you want to speculate - than you get to prove it.

So far all you've got is handwaving and indignation and strawman references to Dan Rather.

Why is that important? Because there are two possible issues here. One is what David Kay laid out. Regardless of how much explosives the soldiers in the video found - they should not have walked away, leaving it unguarded.

That's a valid point - you'll get no argument from me. But, unlike you - I begin by blaming the soldiers themselves. If they were under orders to move along, no matter what they found, then blame shifts to their superiors.

well we know that some of them were ordered just to push on - the team on April 10 I believe was told this. The commander who was in charge of the area by 4/18 described it as being within his military contol (despite the reporters noticing the bunkers sitting open.) More later on down about orders.

And so on. That's why I inquired about the directives handed down to the commanders in the field. Without knowing that, you have no idea why they were left unguarded.

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

It's been clear from day 1 that this war was going to be fought on the cheap with as small a force as possible, as per Rummy's orders. It's been clear from about day 14 that the force was not capable of protecting the territory it claimed, including pipelines, oil wells, weapons caches, etc. It's a matter of record that Bush, Franks & Rummy w planned this battle out personally.

And perhaps you and I differ on whether or not more important things could have been afoot than these explosives.

Perhaps.

The other issue is whether or not enough of the explosives were present when we got there to warrant very serious consideration by the forces for permanent security. If all they saw was the barrels, and [if]those barrels aren't anything close to 380 tons of explosives (let's say 1 ton) - perhaps they made the call that it wasn't worth protecting in light of the other 400,000 tons of nastiness that needed protecting?

Emphasis added, including the unspoken "if" in brackets. Ifs and perhaps and more speculation. <shrug>

I don't know. All I'm doing is failing to jump to the conclusion you want me to based on incomplete information. Or conflicting information, as the case may be.

well no. what you're doing is making up a lot of speculation based on nothing in particular and then using that to pretend that the actual evidence of incompetence is just as baseless as your speculation.

We know the barrels were there, sealed.

We know that some barrels were "sealed" in one bunker. I'll give you that.

Link
ABC's team witnessed multiple bunkers and heaps of stuff. They also report the US soldiers talked about going into the bunkers on other occaisions.

the April 2003 visit, our crews witnessed 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 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS that the area visited was secured by an outside perimeter. Our crew said the area felt more like no-mans-land.

We know there were 380 tons of it.

I've seen like seven different numbers, just today. Which is it?

Granted, the math does seem to be challenging the assorted journalists on this story. Annoying. The letter which started this brouhaha from the Iraqi Science guy whose title escapes me to the ElBaradi states the amount as "341.7 metric tons, about 377 American tons" according to the NY Times. That's probably why the confusion - damn metric system. In my posts, 380 tons was rounded up from 377 American tons. I mean, what's a ton or two between friends.

We know some of it was under US care at one time. We know it's gone.

This is a question I asked earlier. Which David Kay answered. We know that those barrels are missing. And we can begin to figure out why they are missing.

Let's start with the orders the soldiers received that resulted in them leaving the place unguarded (or the intelligence failures that led to them not knowing what they found).

Do you have copies of those orders or intelligence reports?

No I don't have actual copies of those orders. I don't know if Rummy dresses left or right either. Nor do I intend to find out.

Here's what I got:

April 3 - fighting was in progress while they were there. They didn't stop to look around.
April 10 - The NBC visit. Just an overnight pit stop. They just glanced around and moved on. They had orders to be elsewhere.
April 18 - The ABC visit. The troops who were there and supposedly in charge had a perimiter fence up around AQQ but their actual camp was miles away and no patroled the area regularly. The military commander of the troops present claimed the area was under military control. This was the visit where the ABC team saw US troops opening bunkers and seals and assorted Iraqi ne'er-do-wells skuling suspiciously. (Cites are ABC & NBC reporting. I'm too tired to link to them again.)

Oh, one other thing - we know the IAEA told the US that Bad Stuff was at Al Qa Qa and we know that the US had known AQQ was a weapons plant for years.

In other words, and in my opinion of course, there's no excuse for the Persons planning the war not to have given orders to secure the plant.

I am not inclined to give the troops much grief in this area since I believe that they were undermanned from the start and I believe the responsibility is at the top. But the immediate superiors should have come down hard on the turkeys who opened up the seals and explored the bunkers, before during and after the ABC visit.

If you want to say someone else took some of it - pony up your proof.

I haven't seen any evidence that anyone in particular took it. I've simply seen evidence that some amount of the stuff was there, and now it's not. I've seen lots of different timelines, but I've yet to see that we identified the perps.

The perps - for the purposes of my part in this discusion - are not the the point.

The point, as far as what I'm talking about, is why was this stuff left unsealed and unguarded and flappin in the wind?

I'll agree that the troops in the area as of the 18th at least had the immediate responsibility. But the final responsibility lies with the commanders who should have been on top of things.

2. I don't recognize the transcript you're asking about. If you find it let us know.

?? The only transcript I was referring to was the transcript that triggercut just posted.

oops - my mistake.

Well, one of us is likely to be very surprised come Wednesday morning then. Here's hoping it's you.

And with that I'm out of here. I'm pushing the three post rule and maybe also the don't be a jerk rule. I apologize if my post sounds harsh. I try to be very clear when I'm discussing events and I sometimes come across too strongly.

Have a nice weekend, RM9

[RunningMn9]

I honestly do apologize. I wasn't trying to lump you in with some of the posters on here that will defend the President at all costs. If you care to scroll back, I've changed the wording to reflect that it was supposed to be an open question directed to anyone, not just to you.

Fair enough - and since you seem to be the reasonable one, so I'll deal with you from now on.

I'm going to have to take the side that this is an issue that has some momentum, for the reasons discussed earlier.

We find that out Wednesday morning, so debating that seems somewhat pointless.

The post-war planning and troop levels have always been somewhat suspect given all that's happened. Now, with this, the next time there's a report of a car bomb in Iraq, Americans have to wonder if it isn't some of the material from Al Qa Qaa, and if we could have prevented it.

I suppose that depends on where Americans are getting their information from, and how much they trust it right now. But beyond that - when David Kay is saying that the terrorists have 10s of thousands of tons of explosives - perhaps there is a larger issue we need to concern ourselves with than the excruciating minutae of this 18-month old tale?

And I am more than open to making a broad conclusion based on that David Kay statement. Much more so than caring about what seems to be a drop in the bucket here at AQQ.

To be fair, it's not like Bush himself inspected the complex and then walked away from it. However, some iota of responsibility, if there weren't enough troops to stay behind to guard it, has to lay with Rumsfeld.

Let me be clear on what I was trying to say before, in case it's not clear already.

If the soldiers received orders to guard any explosives they found - and they didn't, and didn't report their findings - obviously that would be near-total blame for the soldiers in question - can we agree on that?

Now, I think all of us will agree that that is bloody well unlikely. But what I don't know - and what is very important here - is what their orders actually were, that resulted in leaving those explosives behind, unguarded.

In a country armed to the teeth like Saddam was, being invaded by a country that doesn't possess or is not willing to commit unlimited numbers of troops - I have to believe that the "plan", such as it is, contains priorities.

My problem here, in jumping to the conclusions that my Kerry-supporting friends have jumped - is that I don't know *ANY* of the details surrounding those decisions. And I'm not prepared to crucify someone based simply on the outcome. War isn't perfect. I would need to know more before I start clamoring for someone's head.

Now - hypothesizing for a second. Let's say they opened everything up because they were under the directive to find WMDs for PR purposes, and that they left them unguarded because they needed to take Baghdad and protect museums for PR purposes. If that is true, and this isn't a case of detractors looking to engage in some electioneering by using what was a low priority target (with good reasons for being low priority) - then 100% of the blame for this goes to the planners, and by proxy to the President.

But *NONE* of that has been demonstrated here. And that's my problem. I don't get the impression that the crusaders here are looking for or are interested in the truth. I think they're just looking for anything that they can lay at the President's feet. Whether it belongs there or not (and it might).

I don't think I'm out of line in stating that a fair amount of people consider Iraq as Bush's war, and thus ownership of both the successes and the failures reside with him.

There is a difference between concluding that this is Bush's war (it is), and holding him accountable for the success or failure in prosecuting it, and holding the man personally responsible for every single cockup (to use Meghan's word) that the hundreds of thousands of people involved make.

In the end, if this thing melts down - that's Bush's fault. In the end, it this thing turns out to be a wild success - that's Bush's success. But the minutae and day-to-day plusses and minuses? Let's be realistic about that.

Although, as I've said, this evidence can be part of a package that asserts piss-poor planning at the top. And I'm alright with that. Assuming that we come to know and understand what led to the soldiers leaving the place unguarded.

And Meghan - it is NOT an established fact that Bush was in on the planning of this war. That's insane. He signed off on it - which is enough for me to hold him accountable for major errors in it. But he wasn't sitting around the table crafting battle plans.

[RunningMn9]

On my side, I'm quoting the IAEA spokesperson on the IAEA schedule. The IAEA says they were there in January and March. The IAEA would know what their schedule was.

But the competing quote detailing what they did in January (just check the seals that don't actually seal anything in) was also from IAEA people.

That's sort of the problem.

And I will have a nice weekend. I love Halloween.

[malchior]

RM9, there were definitely mass graves in Bosnia. They just found another recently. My brother's fiancee escaped from Bosnia and she has stories that'll turn your hair white.

My favorite is the one where the Serbs ordered her town to evacuate and then blew up the bridge leading out of town as it was clogged with men,women, and children.

Stupid registration...I'll post the relevant text

Forensics experts said they had exhumed 405 bodies from a mass grave, making it the second-largest such site found in Bosnia since the end of the 1992-95 war.

Exhumations will continue for another week at the grave in Stari Kevljani near the town of Prijedor, about 175 kilometres northwest of Sarajevo. The mass grave is the 51st found in the Prijedor area.

Based on evidence so far collected, most of the dead appeared to be Bosnian Muslims who had lived in and around Prijedor and were killed in the Omarska and Keraterm concentration camps in 1992, Bajramovic said.

Over the years, UN and local forensics experts in Bosnia have exhumed 16,500 bodies from more than 300 mass graves. Thousands of people remain missing following the war.

Though I will not comment on Clinton's use of force well after the war was over.

[RunningMn9]

RM9, there were definitely mass graves in Bosnia. They just found another recently. My brother's fiancee escaped from Bosnia and she has stories that'll turn your hair white.

My favorite is the one where the Serbs ordered her town to evacuate and then blew up the bridge leading out of town as it was clogged with men,women, and children.

I actually edited that out before you posted. Not because I was aware of mass graves, but because I didn't need to use Clinton to make my point.

My point was that I rarely hold any President completely culpable for the details of what millions of government and military people do in their day to day jobs.

[malchior]

RM9, I agree that Bush is often the scapegoat, but when it comes to the situation in Iraq, I definitely think the pattern suggests that we made serious planning mistakes and these were compounded by unexpected operational difficulties, which have to be reasonably expected and perhaps weren't.

But, IMO it's too difficult to gauge whether current or near future conditions in Iraq were caused by what factors. The pattern suggests that the lack of security throughout the country was disasterous, but there are way too many factors that can't be outright dismissed and we lack perspective. That's why even though I am upset about how Iraq is playing out, that wasn't the overriding issue why I'm voting for a Democratic President for the first time.

I think this issue(the explosives) while serious has obviously been magically reconjured as a weak ass attempt at an October surprise. IMO there are plenty of issues where we have enough facts to condemn Bush's administration without relying on bad data.

[RunningMn9]

RM9, I agree that Bush is often the scapegoat, but when it comes to the situation in Iraq, I definitely think the pattern suggests that we made serious planning mistakes and these were compounded by unexpected operational difficulties, which have to be reasonably expected and perhaps weren't.

I see a difference between holding Bush responsible for the poor planning that went into Iraq, and holding him personally responsible for losing X tons of explosives. And I think that distinction gets lost when the opposition sinks their teeth into something like this.

Bush's ultimate success or failure here won't be decided for decades likely - long after these details are forgotten.

And at that point I will hold him personally responsible for the result.

[Eco-Logic]

New on Drudge:

FLASH 10.29.04 11:36:56 ET /// Soldier to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al QaQaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons... Officer was ordered to join the 101st airborne on April 13 -- to destroy conventional explosives at the al QaQaa complex... Developing...


MAJOR: WE REMOVED 200+ TONS OF EXPLOSIVES FROM FACILITY

Before any of you say "you're a freaking conservative idiot who believes whatever you want to compliment your cause" and other shit like that.

I'm just posting this FYI.

[RunningMn9]

Oh JHC. Now we remember that we removed them?!!?!?!?!?!

I can't take it any more.

[SuperHiro]

Wait a sec. Let me get my teeth straight before I run my smartass mouth.

1) We found out some explosives were missing from a shithole

2) The Bush administration admitted that said explosives were stolen, but that Saddam did it before we arrived at the scene.

3) Some video popped up through embedded reporters show that said explosives were there and sealed up.

4) Major at Pentagon is now saying that he removed the stuff.

This basically right?

What the hell is going on?

[RunningMn9]

What the hell is going on?

My thoughts exactly. Everyone has that line where things instantly become absurd. Mine was just crossed.

No one remembered removing 200+ tons of explosives from AQQ except this guy?

When they trot out barrels that don't really look like the barrels in the video, I hope they are at least smart enough to scratch "U.S.A." off the side.

Even if this is true - it's still crosses the line into absurdity that it took 5 days to figure that out.

[Eco-Logic]

I agree, what the hell is going on.

[Snow]

There were looters...they're US troops

I hadn't even considered this possibility

[Defiant]

.)

[RunningMn9]

There were looters...they're US troops

I hadn't even considered this possibility

I did

Damn. He nailed it.

[YellowKing]

Even if this is true - it's still crosses the line into absurdity that it took 5 days to figure that out.

It takes a minimum of 5 days to create a believable cover story and send CIA agents to every involved person's house to threaten the murder of their families should they reveal the truth.

God I wish I had never read that stupid conspiracy book.

[RunningMn9]

I didn't read it yet, but here's the article

[RunningMn9]

And I post this only to make Meghan laugh - not to get her to link me to the AP article again.

in March, an agency spokesman conceded, inspectors only checked the locked bunker doors.

[Anonymous Bosch]

I think Churchill put it best:

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."

Just something to keep in mind amongst all the Monday-morning quarterbacking.

[RunningMn9]

It's been 48 hours. I demand links dismantling the good Major and his claims that we secured and destroyed 250 tons of explosives at AQQ.

[Edmond]