Further Evidence of Incompetence?

If we captured and are destroying 400,000 tons of munitions (in any form), and we have lost the 380 tons of explosives, and the two of these constitute all of the explosives in Iraq (which we know it is not) then the 380 tons is 0.095% of the total. Even less if there are more explosives to be had. From my perspective, our troops did a pretty good job.

Still, put the numbers in perspective:
If the explosives were “known” to be there before April 10, 2003 when the 101st went through (and the 3rd ID before that) with neither seeing them, and not there on May 24 when Task Force 75, the Arms Inspection Team, did a detailed inspection, then they were “lost” in 44 days.
If we had access to an unlimited number of young, super stud, looters each able to carry 100 pounds (there was a time when we could) we would need (3802000)/100=7600 looters or a pool of “equivalent” looters to return and take another load.
If the explosives were easily divided into 100lb units (I have no idea how they are packaged) and we could load a looter every 6 minutes or 10 an hour, we would need 760 hours to pack out the explosives. This could be affected by the number of parallel processes we could manage; i.e., 2 queues = 380 hours, 4 queues = 190 hours, etc. You get the picture,
If we managed one queue for 760 hours (7x24) it would take us 31 days, 16 hours to tote the freight. That’s a lot of people waiting in line. Let’s use a truck.
If we use a typical 22’ dump truck with a capacity of 23 tons, we would need (380
2000)/(23*2000)=16.52 trucks or an equivalent pool assuming some can make multiple trips.
Although we can tote more with each trip its going to take longer to load them. For an argument sake let’s assume one every 30 minutes or two an hour. Now we can empty the place in a typical workday of 8.3 hours (we’ll pay a little overtime).
So what does all of this mean? Seems to me that if we had 7600 looters queuing up every day for 31 days and 16 hours or we had a line of 17 dump trucks coming in and out of a location steadily for 8 hours, in the middle of a combat zone, in the midst of an active war, someone would have noticed.

I don’t know, but my guess is the explosives were moved ahead of time.

Me Solomon Grundy

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Wait, after weapons inspector Kay said that Saddam had a massive WMD program ready to go, Lumpy is ignoring that and saying he didn?t?

Why not use actual facts? I cannot believe how often I can give a fact, and have it disputed with complete fantasy, lies, and made up facts.

I will admit it is hard to win an argument when the other side has no problem making stuff up to win an argument. Makes it harder for me relying only on facts and reality.
[/quote]

Why not substantiate a fact by telling us where you learned it?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Where are you RSU? You were calling some of us out to comment on this ‘story’ of gross U.S. incompetence. Yet, when the story proved to be another elite media hack job, you vanish.

Come out, come out, wherever you are, and defend the story. [/quote]

I don’t know that it’s been shown to be a ‘media hack job.’ There seems to be a lot of confusion about what happened and when, and you folks around here seemed intent from the beginning on declaring this a media conspiracy.

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:

Why not substantiate a fact by telling us where you learned it?[/quote]

Am I the only one who is supposed to do that? I don’t see any substantiation by the Left.

I have seen people say “Look at this proof” and then post some stupid opinion without any actual fact in it.

You really want me to back up the Kay report? I saw him say this on tv, himself, but I will look for something on the web, after I get back later that is.

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
I don’t know that it’s been shown to be a ‘media hack job.’ There seems to be a lot of confusion about what happened and when, and you folks around here seemed intent from the beginning on declaring this a media conspiracy. [/quote]

Well…if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Right Side Up wrote:

Why not substantiate a fact by telling us where you learned it?

Am I the only one who is supposed to do that? I don’t see any substantiation by the Left.

I have seen people say “Look at this proof” and then post some stupid opinion without any actual fact in it.

You really want me to back up the Kay report? I saw him say this on tv, himself, but I will look for something on the web, after I get back later that is.
[/quote]

You’d better get to huntin’, Mage. You don’t want to get hit over the head with the Gospel According to TME.

Mage,

"Why not use actual facts? I cannot believe how often I can give a fact, and have it disputed with complete fantasy, lies, and made up facts…I will admit it is hard to win an argument when the other side has no problem making stuff up to win an argument. Makes it harder for me relying only on facts and reality. "

Noticing your frustration here.

It only gets worse, my friend - apparently you haven’t yet run into the theory of giving a point or idea validity by writing it in CAPITAL LETTERS.

Just in case you weren’t aware, capital letters means the normal rules of analysis and substantiation don’t apply - pure paranoiac fantasy is completely legitimate as long as some or all of the text is capitalized.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
It only gets worse, my friend - apparently you haven’t yet run into the theory of giving a point or idea validity by writing it in CAPITAL LETTERS.

Just in case you weren’t aware, capital letters means the normal rules of analysis and substantiation don’t apply - pure paranoiac fantasy is completely legitimate as long as some or all of the text is capitalized.
[/quote]

LOL!!! (I’M GOING TO TYPE IN ALL CAPS FROM NOW ON)

Hello everyone. Since I am now required to prove all statements I make, considering I am held to a higher standard then the Liberals, here is what people should know about Iraq.

This is from:
STATEMENT BY DAVID KAY ON THE INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE IRAQ SURVEY GROUP (ISG)
BEFORE THE
HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE,
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE, AND THE
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

October 2, 2003
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

[quote]We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
? A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
? A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
? Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist’s home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
? New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
? Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists’ homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
? A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
? Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
? Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
? Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong – 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment. [/quote]

Later, after talking about the destruction of computers and data, states the following:

Notice the last sentence. No risk? Continuing his statement:

[quote] Debriefings of IIS officials and site visits have begun to unravel a clandestine network of laboratories and facilities within the security service apparatus. This network was never declared to the UN and was previously unknown. We are still working on determining the extent to which this network was tied to large-scale military efforts or BW terror weapons, but this clandestine capability was suitable for preserving BW expertise, BW capable facilities and continuing R&D - all key elements for maintaining a capability for resuming BW production. The IIS also played a prominent role in sponsoring students for overseas graduate studies in the biological sciences, according to Iraqi scientists and IIS sources, providing an important avenue for furthering BW-applicable research. This was the only area of graduate work that the IIS appeared to sponsor.
Discussions with Iraqi scientists uncovered agent R&D work that paired overt work with nonpathogenic organisms serving as surrogates for prohibited investigation with pathogenic agents. Examples include: B. Thurengiensis (Bt) with B. anthracis (anthrax), and medicinal plants with ricin. In a similar vein, two key former BW scientists, confirmed that Iraq under the guise of legitimate activity developed refinements of processes and products relevant to BW agents. The scientists discussed the development of improved, simplified fermentation and spray drying capabilities for the simulant Bt that would have been directly applicable to anthrax, and one scientist confirmed that the production line for Bt could be switched to produce anthrax in one week if the seed stock were available.
A very large body of information has been developed through debriefings, site visits, and exploitation of captured Iraqi documents that confirms that Iraq concealed equipment and materials from UN inspectors when they returned in 2002. One noteworthy example is a collection of reference strains that ought to have been declared to the UN. Among them was a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B. from which a biological agent can be produced. This discovery - hidden in the home of a BW scientist - illustrates the point I made earlier about the difficulty of locating small stocks of material that can be used to covertly surge production of deadly weapons. The scientist who concealed the vials containing this agent has identified a large cache of agents that he was asked, but refused, to conceal. ISG is actively searching for this second cache. [/quote]

As you can see, there were at least precursor biological agents, hidden by a scientist, and not declared to the UN. Also note that he points out how easy it is to hide these agents.

Later he said this:

[quote]While searching for retained weapons, ISG teams have developed multiple sources that indicate that Iraq explored the possibility of CW production in recent years, possibly as late as 2003. When Saddam had asked a senior military official in either 2001 or 2002 how long it would take to produce new chemical agent and weapons, he told ISG that after he consulted with CW experts in OMI he responded it would take six months for mustard. Another senior Iraqi chemical weapons expert in responding to a request in mid-2002 from Uday Husayn for CW for the Fedayeen Saddam estimated that it would take two months to produce mustard and two years for Sarin.
We are starting to survey parts of Iraq’s chemical industry to determine if suitable equipment and bulk chemicals were available for chemical weapons production. We have been struck that two senior Iraqi officials volunteered that if they had been ordered to resume CW production Iraq would have been willing to use stainless steel systems that would be disposed of after a few production runs, in place of corrosive-resistant equipment which they did not have. [/quote]

2 months to mustard, 2 years to sarin. What about Nukes?

[quote]With regard to Iraq’s nuclear program, the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons. They have told ISG that Saddam Husayn remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point. Some indicated a resumption after Iraq was free of sanctions. At least one senior Iraqi official believed that by 2000 Saddam had run out of patience with waiting for sanctions to end and wanted to restart the nuclear program. The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) beginning around 1999 expanded its laboratories and research activities and increased its overall funding levels. This expansion may have been in initial preparation for renewed nuclear weapons research, although documentary evidence of this has not been found, and this is the subject of continuing investigation by ISG.
Starting around 2000, the senior Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) and high-level Ba’ath Party official Dr. Khalid Ibrahim Sa’id began several small and relatively unsophisticated research initiatives that could be applied to nuclear weapons development. These initiatives did not in-and-of themselves constitute a resumption of the nuclear weapons program, but could have been useful in developing a weapons-relevant science base for the long-term. We do not yet have information indicating whether a higher government authority directed Sa’id to initiate this research and, regretfully, Dr. Said was killed on April 8th during the fall of Baghdad when the car he was riding in attempted to run a Coalition roadblock.
Despite evidence of Saddam’s continued ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material. However, Iraq did take steps to preserve some technological capability from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program[/quote]

Notice I did put in the information that while Saddam was wanting to build nukes, there was no information that he had yet started. Skipping the details, he goes on about delivery systems:

[quote]With regard to delivery systems, the ISG team has discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if OIF had not occurred, dramatically breached UN restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War.
Detainees and co-operative sources indicate that beginning in 2000 Saddam ordered the development of ballistic missiles with ranges of at least 400km and up to 1000km and that measures to conceal these projects from UNMOVIC were initiated in late-2002, ahead of the arrival of inspectors. Work was also underway for a clustered engine liquid propellant missile, and it appears the work had progressed to a point to support initial prototype production of some parts and assemblies. According to a cooperating senior detainee, Saddam concluded that the proposals from both the liquid-propellant and solid-propellant missile design centers would take too long. For instance, the liquid-propellant missile project team forecast first delivery in six years. Saddam countered in 2000 that he wanted the missile designed and built inside of six months. On the other hand several sources contend that Saddam’s range requirements for the missiles grew from 400-500km in 2000 to 600-1000km in 2002. [/quote]

He later has some conclusions:

[quote]I have covered a lot of ground today, much of it highly technical. Although we are resisting drawing conclusions in this first interim report, a number of things have become clearer already as a result of our investigation, among them:

  1. Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons.
  2. In the delivery systems area there were already well advanced, but undeclared, on-going activities that, if OIF had not intervened, would have resulted in the production of missiles with ranges at least up to 1000 km, well in excess of the UN permitted range of 150 km. These missile activities were supported by a serious clandestine procurement program about which we have much still to learn.
  3. In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service. While we have much yet to learn about the exact work programs and capabilities of these activities, it is already apparent that these undeclared activities would have at a minimum facilitated chemical and biological weapons activities and provided a technically trained cadre. [/quote]

I don?t think this was the report I had heard on television, but it does show that Saddam continued the WMD research, and had plans for rebuilding. Plus plans to get a Nuke. Don?t just read what I posted, read the whole report.

You might also be interested in this:

http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2004/Oct/06-935424.html

Good background info on the entirety of the picture with regard to Iraqi munitions. It is either incompetence or blind partisanship that this information wasn’t included to give context by CBS/NYT [I used to not like the WaPo, but over the last few years – basically since 9/11 – it’s become a much better paper. I may even subscribe…].

BTW, the article doesn’t say the administration has been perfect in its post-invasion handling of the ammunition dumps, but it does give a nice description of the scale of the project, and what has been done.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7418-2004Oct28.html

[Registration required – but it’s free]

More evidence of incompetence…

http://www.mrc.org/projects/worst/welcome.asp

Not what you thought, ehh…

This is self-explanatory:

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_10_24_corner-archive.asp#043898

PENTAGON PRESS CONFERENCE [Andy McCarthy]
The Pentagon press conference that just ended throws more doubt on the already discredited claim, first aired this week by the New York Times and the Kerry campaign that the American military lost 380 tons of the high explosives HMX and RDX.

Major Austin Pearson explained that his 24th Ordinance Company was called in after the 3rd Infantry Division arrived at the al Qaqaa facility on April 3, 2003. His unit removed and destroyed approximately 250 tons of explosives from al Qaqaa. His mission was basically to remove “loose” materials that might have been a threat to U.S. forces, not to deal with any tightly sealed bunkers. He did not recall seeing any IAEA seals, but does believe at least some of the tonnage he destroyed was high explosives (which were generically referred to as “plastic explosives” and may well have included RDX). It required 17 trucks to cart away from the facility the 250 tons Major Pearson transported – and the major made the obvious explicit: it would be very hard to imagine looters assembling such a caravan and carting away explosives undetected after the U.S. invasion.

Major Pearson was moved to step forward because of the reporting he had seen this week.

The new information is not a definitive rebuttal to the allegations, nor does the the Defense Department contend that it is. On this score, it is important to remember that (a) the initial 380-ton figure had already been substantially discredited by the IAEA’s own internal records, (b) Saddam’s own trucks were in the area – very likely removing tonnage – after the IAEA left in March, and thus (c) no one can say with certainty how much if ANY of this purported 380 tons (which was probably no more than 200 tons, and may have been as few as 3 tons, by the time of the IAEA’s March inspection) was actually at al Qaqaa at the time of the U.S. arrival there on April 3.

Finally, Pentagon spokesman Larry DeRita stressed that U.S. forces have captured 400,000 tons of explosives in Iraq (and have destroyed a great deal of it). The amount we are talking about, even if the allegation about 380 tons were accurate, is less than one-thousandth of what our troops have seized. There has, moreover, been no explanation of why the IAEA and the UN permitted Saddam Hussein, supposedly disarmed after the 1991 Gulf War, to have 400,000 tons of explosives – including components for long range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons which were expressly prohibited to Iraq under Security Council resolutions.
Posted at 01:28 PM

I know video footage does little to tickle the fancies of those around here, but perhaps the book isn’t as closed on this case as the right may wish to believe:

"[quote]Video Shows G.I.'s at Weapon Cache
By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER

A videotape made by a television crew with American troops when they opened bunkers at a sprawling Iraqi munitions complex south of Baghdad shows a huge supply of explosives still there nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein, apparently including some sealed earlier by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The tape, broadcast on Wednesday night by the ABC affiliate in Minneapolis, appeared to confirm a warning given earlier this month to the agency by Iraqi officials, who said that hundreds of tons of high-grade explosives, powerful enough to bring down buildings or detonate nuclear weapons, had vanished from the site after the invasion of Iraq.

The question of whether the material was removed by Mr. Hussein’s forces in the days before the invasion, or looted later because it was unguarded, has become a heated dispute on the campaign trail, with Senator John Kerry accusing President Bush of incompetence, and Mr. Bush saying it is unclear when the material disappeared and rejecting what he calls Mr. Kerry’s “wild charges.”

Weapons experts familiar with the work of the international inspectors in Iraq say the videotape appears identical to photographs that the inspectors took of the explosives, which were put under seal before the war. One frame shows what the experts say is a seal, with narrow wires that would have to be broken if anyone entered through the main door of the bunker.

The agency said that when it left Iraq in mid-March, only days before the war began, the only bunkers bearing its seals at the huge complex contained the explosive known as HMX, which the agency had monitored because it could be used in a nuclear weapons program. It is now clear that program had ground to a halt.

The New York Times and CBS reported on Monday that Iraqi officials had told the agency earlier this month that the explosives were missing, and that they were looted after April 9, 2003, the day Baghdad fell.

Yesterday evening, the Pentagon released a satellite image of the complex taken just two days after the inspectors left, showing a few trucks parked in front of some bunkers. It is not clear they are the bunkers with the high explosives.

“All we are trying to demonstrate is that after the I.A.E.A. left, and the place was under Saddam’s control, there was activity,” said Lawrence DiRita, the Pentagon spokesman. It is not clear from the photo what activity, if any, was under way.

On Thursday, a top Iraqi official said the interim government had spoken to witnesses who said the material was still at Al Qaqaa at the time Baghdad fell.

The videotape , taken by KSTP-TV, an ABC affiliate in Minneapolis-St. Paul, shows troops breaking into a bunker and opening boxes and examining barrels. Many of the containers are marked “explosive.” One box is marked “Al Qaqaa State Establishment,” apparently a shipping label from a manufacturer.

The ABC crew said the video was taken on April 18. The timing is critical to the debate in the presidential campaign. By the Pentagon’s own account, units of the 101st Airborne Division were near Al Qaqaa for what Mr. DiRita said was “two to three weeks,” starting April 10.

Then they headed north to Baghdad, and the site was apparently left unguarded. By the time special weapons teams returned to Al Qaqaa in May, the explosives were apparently gone.

In disputing claims by Mr. Kerry that the Americans had lost the explosives, a senior administration official said Thursday, “We don’t know all the facts and no one should be jumping to conclusions.” Al Qaqaa, the official said, “was not controlled for three weeks after the I.A.E.A. left,” and added “there are a lot of dots we have to connect.”

The Pentagon also notes that it has destroyed 400,000 tons of munitions from thousands of sites across Iraq, and that the explosives at Al Qaqaa account for “one-tenth of 1 percent” of that amount.

The Minneapolis television crew was with an Army unit that was camped near Al Qaqaa, members of the crew said. The reporter and cameraman said that although they were not told specifically that they were being taken to Al Qaqaa by the military, their videotape matches pictures of the site taken by United Nations weapons inspectors, according to weapons experts.

“The photographs are consistent with what I know of Al Qaqaa,” said David A. Kay, a former American official who led the recent hunt in Iraq for unconventional weapons and visited the vast site. “The damning thing is the seals. The Iraqis didn’t use seals on anything. So I’m absolutely sure that’s an I.A.E.A. seal.”

One weapons expert said the videotape and some of the agency’s photographs of the HMX stockpiles “were such good matches it looked like they were taken by the same camera on the same day.”

Independent experts said several other factors - the geography; the number of bunkers; the seals on some of the bunker doors; the boxes, crates and barrels similar to those seen by weapon inspectors - confirm that the videotape was taken at Al Qaqaa.

“There’s not another place that you would mistake it for,” said Dean Staley, the KSTP reporter, who now works in Seattle.

The accidental news encounter began last year after the invasion, Mr. Staley recalled in an interview. Their Army unit arrived in the region on Friday, April 11, and made camp. The Fifth Battalion of the 101st Airborne’s 159th Aviation Brigade flew helicopter missions from the camp in the Iraqi desert, moving troops and supplies to the front.

A week later, on Friday, April 18, two journalists recalled, they joined two soldiers who were driving in a Humvee to investigate the nearby bunkers. Among other things, wandering inside the cavernous buildings offered the prospect of relief from the desert sun.

“It was just by chance that we were able to go,” said Joe Caffrey, the team’s photographer. “They wanted to go out and we asked to tag along.”

Mr. Caffrey provided The New York Times with the latitude and longitude of the camp, which places it between 1.5 and 3 miles southeast of Al Qaqaa bunkers. A commercial satellite photograph of the region shows that the camp was close to the storage site. Mr. Caffrey said the soldiers used bolt cutters to cut through chains with locks on them, as well as seals. He said the seals appeared to be lead disks attached to very thin wires that were wrapped around the doors of the bunker entrances, forming a barrier easily cut in two.

They visited a half dozen bunkers, he said. The gloomy interiors revealed long rows of boxes, crates and barrels, what independent experts said were three kinds of HMX containers shipped to Iraq from France, China and Yugoslavia.

The team opened storage containers, some of which contained white powder that independent experts said was consistent with HMX.

“The soldiers were pretty much in awe of what they were seeing,” Mr. Caffrey recalled. “They were saying their E.O.D. - Explosive Ordinance Division, people who blow this kind of stuff up - would have a field day.”

The journalists filmed roughly 25 minutes of video. Mr. Caffrey added that the team left the bunker doors open. “It would have been easy for anybody to get in,” he said.

Mr. Staley recalled that during the drive back to camp, they saw a red Toyota pickup truck with some Iraqis in it. “Our impression was they were looters,” he said. “This was a no man’s land. It was a huge facility, and we worried that they were bad guys who might come up on us.”

The two journalists filed a short story, which ran soon thereafter in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

In the interview, Mr. Caffrey said he had carefully rechecked the date on the cassette for his camera, adding that he was sure it was April 18, 2003.

Yesterday Mohamed al-Sharaa, director of the national monitoring directorate at the Iraq Ministry of Science and Technology, explained for the first time why Iraqi officials had specified in their letter to the United Nations agency that the explosives had been looted after April 9, 2003. “We have some witnesses,” Mr. Sharaa said outside his office at the ministry. “They say that the materials,” he added, were “in this site after April 9.”

The witnesses were people working at Al Qaqaa, Mr. Sharaa said. Still, he said, the evidence is not yet definitive, and “we don’t say it’s impossible” that the material was somehow taken out of Al Qaqaa before the American forces came through the area. The first American forces arrived at Al Qaqaa on April 3.

Rashad M. Omar, the minister of science and technology, said that as far as he was concerned, the exact timing of the disappearance remained unknown. “How, where, when is it taken, all these questions, we don’t have answers,” Dr. Omar said.

He said a committee headed by himself was about to undertake an investigation of the disappearance, in parallel with American efforts to clear up the mystery. Dr. Omar said that he was extremely confident that the investigations would determine the facts of the case.

“The quantity was so huge,” Dr. Omar said. “Somebody must know what happened to the material. I am sure the facts will not be hidden for a long time.”[/quote]"

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
I know video footage does little to tickle the fancies of those around here, but perhaps the book isn’t as closed on this case as the right may wish to believe:[/quote]

I don’t think we’re trying to close the book. Instead we’re doing something a little different than what your typical Democrat prefers; we’re trying to get to the facts. Not that the media or John Kerry care about the facts…

RSU I think that is our whole point, we just don’t know what happened to those explosives yet. Well at least everyone but the Kerry Campaign don’t know. The man will say anything to get elected, and yet again, the bush administration is criticised for not having an immediate response for the claims made by the kerry campaign. It seems as if no one really cares about the truth anymore, they just want to see who can be louder and more vile than the other guy. This I think is a great way to decide who runs the country. (dripping sarcasm)

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

The video and the press conference can be reconciled in a couple of ways.

First, what is shown in the video might be explosives, but not the explosives the IAEA claimed were missing.

Second, the dates of both the destruction and the video need to be confirmed.

Third, there might be some – but much less than the amount claimed – of the RDX and HMX along with other substances in there – the labels don’t specifically state what is in the containers. It was shown – by referencing the IAEA’s own docs – that there were substantially less than 377 tons of materials to begin with – and was probably fewer than 200 tons of the RDX and HMX. Again, there were other materials at al Aqaqaa, so if the 3rd ID destroyed 250 tons, one would presume they got most of the RDX and HMX, but there could have been some much smaller amount remaining.

Whatever the final facts turn out to be, it seems obvious that the NYT and CBS were negligent in their research on this story (I’m being nice – the not-so-nice thing to say would be they had reckless disregard for the truth because they didn’t bother checking with anyone but the person who provided the lead because they wanted a sensational story), and blew it far out of proportion.

[quote]Vegita wrote:
RSU I think that is our whole point, we just don’t know what happened to those explosives yet. Well at least everyone but the Kerry Campaign don’t know. The man will say anything to get elected, and yet again, the bush administration is criticised for not having an immediate response for the claims made by the kerry campaign. It seems as if no one really cares about the truth anymore, they just want to see who can be louder and more vile than the other guy. This I think is a great way to decide who runs the country. (dripping sarcasm)

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins[/quote]

Point taken…however…the fact seems to remain that there is video footage of the explosives being at the site 9 days after the fall of Baghdad – so there’s your relevant timeline.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The video and the press conference can be reconciled in a couple of ways.

[/quote]

And it must, BB, be reconciled, right? Because there’s no way Bush should be required to say that anything has gone wrong at all on his watch.

You keep clicking away and reading those articles, until this matter is reconciled.

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Vegita wrote:
RSU I think that is our whole point, we just don’t know what happened to those explosives yet. Well at least everyone but the Kerry Campaign don’t know. The man will say anything to get elected, and yet again, the bush administration is criticised for not having an immediate response for the claims made by the kerry campaign. It seems as if no one really cares about the truth anymore, they just want to see who can be louder and more vile than the other guy. This I think is a great way to decide who runs the country. (dripping sarcasm)

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

Point taken…however…the fact seems to remain that there is video footage of the explosives being at the site 9 days after the fall of Baghdad – so there’s your relevant timeline.
[/quote]

If this video footage is so damn conclusive, why is the book not closed on this? Why is the media allowing more headlines to seep through? You simply don’t have the ability to be objective anymore.

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
The video and the press conference can be reconciled in a couple of ways.

{/quote]

And it must, BB, be reconciled, right? Because there’s no way Bush should be required to say that anything has gone wrong at all on his watch.

You keep clicking away and reading those articles, until this matter is reconciled.[/quote]

This is the exact problem with this whole line of argument.

OF COURSE it must be reconciled. Either that, or one of the sources must be wrong. This is simply logic when you are dealing with a seeming paradox.

However, the ABB crowd just wants to blame everything on Bush, irrespective of whether anything actually went wrong. This goes well beyond this little incident, and encompasses a whole arm of the Kerry strategy. And people hate Bush so much they buy into it hook, line and sinker without bothering to stop and think for a moment.