October Surprise Failure?

So apparently a local abc affiliate news crew was embedded with the 101st airborne and stationed just south of the Al Qaqaa facility. The visited the facility on April 18th, 2003 and saw numerous boxes and crates labelled “explosives.” Read the excerpt below.

A link with pictures of the facility and the explosives are here: http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

[quote]During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS news crew bunker after bunker of material labelled “explosives.” Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get into the bunkers and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords.

“We can stick it in those and make some good bombs.” a soldier told our crew.

Soldiers who took a 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew into bunkers on April 18 said some of the boxes uncovered contained proximity fuses. There were what appeared to be fuses for bombs. They also found bags of material men from the 101st couldn’t identify, but box after box was clearly marked “explosive.”

In one bunker, there were boxes marked with the name “Al Qaqaa”, the munitions plant where tons of explosives allegedly went missing.

Once the doors to the bunkers were opened, they weren’t secured. They were left open when the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew and the military went back to their base.[/quote]

No one can yet say for certain if these are part of the explosives in question (the 380 tons), but certainly there was enough material there left unguarded to fashion a significant number of IEDs. Any thoughts from you guys?

Moriarty –

I saw this. A couple thoughts come to mind. First, the IAEA supposedly marked the chemicals that are missing – not just “explosives” but “nuclear” or some other such marking. Al Aaqua had lots of munitions, but the ones that the IAEA says are missing are specifically HMX and RDX.

Second, I believe the previous reports from the 3rd ID and 101st stated that there were some explosives at the site – but not nearly 377 tonnes of HMX and RDX that the NYT claimed – and not even 197 tonnes, the actual total claimed by the IAEA, which was given here by Andrew McCarthy at NRO:

"The ABC story says there were 141 tons of RDX said to be stored at al Qaqaa as of July 2002, but only 3 as of January. This is an extremely important development, but it does not mean the Times necessarily overstated the case by 377 tons. Rather, it overstated it by at least 138 tons. However, that does not affect the 194 tons of HMX, still said to be, probably, accounted for as of January 2003. The disappearance of 138 tons of RDX does not mean the 194 tons of HMX were not still there. The catch there, however, is that the HMX may also have been missing – but this is speculation (albeit very educated speculation). That is, IAEA presumes the HMX was there because the seals were not broken, but ABC reports the integrity of the containers was so poor (due to porous “ventilation slats”) that Saddam could easily have removed the much or all of HMX without breaking the seals – which the IAEA might not have detected in March because they evidently (and incompetently) just checked to see whether the seals wre still intact rather than actually looking inside the containers.

I think you can safely say the ABC story indicates that, rather than 380 tons, we may be talking about no more than 197 tons (3 RDX + 194 HMX) and that it could be as little as 3 in the logical but unverifiable event that IAEA incorrectly assumed HMX was still there."

Third, I’m not certain that HMX and RDX would be labeled as “explosives”, given that, as I understand, they are components to explosives, and are very stable chemicals – there would be no need for a warning label or something of that nature.

So, while the video shows explosives, it’s unclear – and actually unlikely – that those explosives were the missing HMX and RDX.

There is a serious, serious problem at the beginning of the chain of this story. If you look at the ABC story rainjack and I linked above, and look at the last section, you will find this information:

"Another Concern

The IAEA documents from January 2003 found no discrepancy in the amount of the more dangerous HMX explosives thought to be stored at Al-Qaqaa, but they do raise another disturbing possibility.

The documents show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility. Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted."

The IAEA inspectors didn’t break the seals on the bunkers to see what was inside – and the story notes it would have been exceedingly easy for Saddam to remove the contents.

Given all the other logistical problems that have been noted related to removing such large quantites of chemicals, I think the most logical explanation is Saddam moved them prior to the IAEA inspection.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Moriarty –

I saw this. A couple thoughts come to mind.

[/quote]

Thanks for the info.

Moriarty:

More analysis and info on that video here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200410282152.asp

I bet some friends at work that bush is going to make a suprise trip to iraq this weekend.I wonder how this would effect the undecided voters.

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board weighs in:

The U.N.'s Revenge
October 29, 2004; Page A14

The United Nations appears to have cast its vote in the U.S. Presidential election this week, and it wasn’t exactly a secret ballot. It used 377 tons of high-grade Iraqi explosives to announce its opposition to re-electing George W. Bush.

At least we think that’s a fair suspicion from the oh-so-convenient timing of the story of the explosives missing from the Qaqaa munitions depot outside Baghdad. The story itself ought to be of minor import and has many oddities about it, but none more curious than the chronology of how it came to dominate the last week of this election.

On October 10, a letter from the Iraqi Ministry of Science & Technology arrived at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Vienna headquarters. The letter included a list of “high explosive materials” that “were lost” after April 9, 2003, through “the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security.” This is the ministry that worked with the IAEA before the war and it’s headed by a man who used to work for Saddam Hussein.

The Iraqi ministry was responding, in what appears to be record time, to a U.N. request. IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei attaches the Iraqi letter to his own October 25 letter to the U.N. Security Council, saying he had received it “consequent to [a] reminder” the IAEA had sent on October 1. Somehow, information that was known for many months suddenly required urgent communication to New York.

Another perplexity is the Iraqi ministry’s flat-out statement that it knew the explosives were present before April 9, 2003, the day prior to the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division’s arrival at al Qaqaa. A far more logical explanation is that Saddam removed the material before the war began. Buford Blount, who commanded the 3rd ID at the time, said yesterday that “Saddam for several months before we attacked moved most of his ammunition and explosives. … And he moved tons and tons of ammunition and distributed it throughout the cities and throughout the desert. I don’t think anyone at this point can say whether there was anything there of that magnitude.” The U.S. also has satellite photos, from March 17, 2003, showing heavy equipment working around al Qaqaa.

Such removal would not have been hard to accomplish, as an IAEA inspection report of January 14, 2003, makes only too clear: “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.”

As for “looting,” it’s hard to see how that could have taken place without the notice of coalition forces. The Pentagon says it would have taken roughly 38 truckloads to move 380 tons of explosives – all while U.S. vehicles filled the Iraqi roadways at that time.

The IAEA informed the U.S. about the missing stockpile on October 15, noting that it was “likely to leak.” In his October 25 letter to the Security Council, Mr. ElBaradei dryly noted “the matter has been given media coverage today.” That was the day the story was first reported by the New York Times and CBS News. Mission accomplished?

Meanwhile, the Kerry campaign continues to hammer President Bush over the missing explosives, as if this is anything more than a minor mystery in the broader debate over who can best secure victory in Iraq. To put the missing 377 tons in further context: The recent Duelfer report says that the U.S. has found 405,944 tons of munitions in Iraq, of which 243,045 tons have already been destroyed.

There’s one last date worth noting: September 10. That’s the day Mr. ElBaradei announced that he would seek a third term as IAEA head. The Bush Administration believes heads of U.N. agencies should serve a maximum of two terms. It told Mr. ElBaradei when it supported him for a second term in 2001 that it would not support him for a third. A Kerry Administration might take a different view, especially after this week.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

There’s one last date worth noting: September 10. That’s the day Mr. ElBaradei announced that he would seek a third term as IAEA head. The Bush Administration believes heads of U.N. agencies should serve a maximum of two terms. It told Mr. ElBaradei when it supported him for a second term in 2001 that it would not support him for a third. A Kerry Administration might take a different view, especially after this week.[/quote]

SO SHADDDDDDDDDDDDY!!!

well apparently the U.S Army destroyed half of this stuff at the very least.

There is a news conference going on now with more details.