Al Qaqaa Facility: Making the World More Dangerous in Iraq

[PeachMonkey]

Perhaps all, some, or possibly even none of the chemicals were used for such a purpose, but then again, Iraq seemed to have been telling the truth when they said the have no Weapons of Mass Destruction, right?

Michael, you're so silly -- believing Iraq, UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, and the United States' own weapons inspection teams over the claims of the Bush Administration.

 

[MisterMike]

Perhaps all, some, or possibly even none of the chemicals were used for such a purpose, but then again, Iraq seemed to have been telling the truth when they said the have no Weapons of Mass Destruction, right?

Yes, but it's kind of like the boy who cried wolf. Iraq had no credibility with us. You can cry the truth, but with their history, it wasn't going to help. Especially with the information (as erroneous as it was) given to the Administration from the CIA.

Sucks that it wasn't there, in a way, but now we're more than knee-deep in it.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Yes, but it's kind of like the boy who cried wolf. Iraq had no credibility with us. You can cry the truth, but with their history, it wasn't going to help. Especially with the information (as erroneous as it was) given to the Administration from the CIA.

Sucks that it wasn't there, in a way, but now we're more than knee-deep in it.

The administration knew better, Mr. Mike. Have you not seen the pre-9-11 footage of Rice and Powell stating-very clearly-that Iraq was no threat?

In the thread "Did We Have Justification" I provided a link to an article in the e-zine "In These Times" titled "They Knew." In it the authors cite numerous instances where the intelligence community (inlcuding the CIA) stated that Iraq had no WMD's. One can connect with the news articles referenced by clicking on the hyperlinks.

The administration knew well ahead of time that there was no cogent, justifiable reason for war with Iraq. A number of conservatives recognize this.

Regards,


Steve

 

[MisterMike]

The administration knew better, Mr. Mike. Have you not seen the pre-9-11 footage of Rice and Powell stating-very clearly-that Iraq was no threat?

In the thread "Did We Have Justification" I provided a link to an article in the e-zine "In These Times" titled "They Knew." In it the authors cite numerous instances where the intelligence community (inlcuding the CIA) stated that Iraq had no WMD's. One can connect with the news articles referenced by clicking on the hyperlinks.

The administration knew well ahead of time that there was no cogent, justifiable reason for war with Iraq. A number of conservatives recognize this.

Regards,


Steve

Yes, but this is the same CIA that suspected Iraq would be capable of making WMD's before too long and also could not account for thousands of pounds of chemical weapons (yes the ones we know he had because he bought them from us, etc.).

My belief, is that it is harder to prove someone does not have any weapons, and easier to say that they still might have them since we knew Iraq was heading that way and had some in the past.

So, yes, the administration could cherry-pick what tidbits they wanted to build a case, but on the flip side, the CIA could not say definitively there were none, by my standards. (Yes, I know the inspections were ended prematurely)

Bottom line, if you want mine, I still think we needed to get in and oust Saddam. I don't like how the case was put to the country in the President's speech. With time, it could have been justified by other means. (Continued UN non-compliance, etc.) In the end, I think the President took the action that would have been inevitable because he wants to keep the country safe.

Lieing is not defendable. Making mistakes always looks worse in hindsight. How bad it looks to the nation will be determined this election. I'm not a Republican, although I do like a few things this president has done in the last 4 years. There are actually more that I dislike. I think the only reason I post about the war is because I see comments that are really more politically driven but had it been "their guy" things would have been different. I only wish to offer an honest opinion, not to come off as the "devil's advocate" or as a full-fledged Bush supporter.

Well...Don't want thread drift so I'll stop there.
Thanks for reading.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

MisterMike's comments in bold.

Yes, but this is the same CIA that suspected Iraq would be capable of making WMD's before too long and also could not account for thousands of pounds of chemical weapons (yes the ones we know he had because he bought them from us, etc.).

In February 2001, the CIA delivered a report to the White House that said: “We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.” The report was so definitive that Secretary of State Colin Powell issued the quote below.


"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Colin Powell in Cairo February 24, 2001


The footage of Powell saying the above can be found at:

http://www.ejectbush.com/


So, yes, the administration could cherry-pick what tidbits they wanted to build a case, but on the flip side, the CIA could not say definitively there were none, by my standards. (Yes, I know the inspections were ended prematurely)

See the report listed above. Take note of the following...

The National Intelligence Estimate did not list Iraq as possessing WMD's. It wasn't mentioned. It wasn't an issue.

In January of 2002 the State Department's intelligence bureau said that evidence did not “add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what [we] consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons.”

In March 2003, IAEA Director Mohammed El Baradei said there was no proof Iraq had nuclear weapons and added “documents which formed the basis for [the White House’s assertion] of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic.” This proved true...but Cheney said at the time Baradei was wrong.

The Defense Intelligence Agency had submitted a report to the administration finding “no reliable information” to prove Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons. That conclusion was similar to the findings of a 1998 government commission on WMD chaired by Rumsfeld.

The Air Force’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center debunked the idea that the drones Iraq had could be used as delivery systems for WMD's.



-----

The administration did more than just "cherry pick" away at the information. They ignored evidence that undermined their case.

As for proving there were no weapons...had we been patient, the proof we now have would have been the truth we would have discovered 1,111 lives ago.




Regards,



Steve

 

[TwistofFat]

I thought we were talking about the Al Kaakaaa facility? If is found that the Russians moved the stockpiles into Syria will that be incompetence on the administrations part? Should they have hit those 40+ trucks with missles prior to the Senates second vote?

 

[michaeledward]

I thought we were talking about the Al Kaakaaa facility? If is found that the Russians moved the stockpiles into Syria will that be incompetence on the administrations part? Should they have hit those 40+ trucks with missles prior to the Senates second vote?

I thought I saw reports that the IEAE confirmed the seals were intact on March 15, 2003. The invasion began on March 20, 2003. Of course, our special forces were in country by the 15th anyhow.

I have to imagine our 'eye-in-the-sky' was watching and would have noticed 40+ tractor-trailers.

Now, I have not watched this story as closely as I would like ... But, I think the IAEA reports may be a little more credible than Sun Yun Moons' Washington Times.

Is there anyone else reporting the Russion Connection?

 

[TwistofFat]

Michael,

Honestly have not had time to look it up. I do find the Reverened Moon's weddings lovely...are the announcements covered in The Times?

 

[michaeledward]

ABC News had embedded journalists with the military that have disputed the chemicals were moved prior to the United States taking control of the facility. They broadcast a video showing HMX barrels an U.N. sealed doors in April of 2003.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847

Oct. 28, 2004 — The strongest evidence to date indicates that conventional explosives missing from Iraq's Al-Qaqaa installation disappeared after the United States had taken control of Iraq.

Barrels inside the Al-Qaqaa facility appear on videotape shot by ABC television affiliate KSTP of St. Paul, Minn., which had a crew embedded with the 101st Airborne Division when it passed through Al-Qaqaa on April 18, 2003 — nine days after Baghdad fell.
Experts who have studied the images say the barrels on the tape contain the high explosive HMX, and the U.N. markings on the barrels are clear.

"I talked to a former inspector who's a colleague of mine, and he confirmed that, indeed, these pictures look just like what he remembers seeing inside those bunkers," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.

The barrels were found inside sealed bunkers, which American soldiers are seen on the videotape cutting through. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency sealed the bunkers where the explosives were kept just before the war began.

"The seal's critical," Albright said. "The fact that there's a photo of what looks like an IAEA seal means that what's behind those doors is HMX. They only sealed bunkers that had HMX in them."

After the bunkers were opened, the 101st was not ordered to secure the facility. A senior officer told ABC News the division would not have had nearly enough soldiers to do so.

It remains unclear how much HMX was at the facility, but what does seem clear is that the U.S. military opened the bunkers at Al-Qaqaa and left them unguarded. Since then, the material has disappeared.

ABC News' Martha Raddatz filed this report for World News Tonight.

See also : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

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

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld entered the debate Thursday, suggesting the 377 tons of explosives were taken away before U.S. forces arrived, saying any large effort to loot the material afterward would have been detected.
“We would have seen anything like that,” he said in one of two radio interviews he gave at the Pentagon. “The idea it was suddenly looted and moved out, all of these tons of equipment, I think is at least debatable.” . . .
Rumsfeld, in one radio interview, also cast doubt on the suggestion of one of his subordinates that Russian forces assisted the Iraqis in removing them.

John Shaw, the deputy U.S. undersecretary of defense for international technology security, suggested to The Washington Times in an interview that the Russians may have been involved, prompting an angry denial from Moscow.

Rumsfeld said, “I have no information on that at all, and cannot validate that even slightly.”

 

[Makalakumu]

Boy the democrats and their conspiracies...

Guess what? This stuff was missing along time ago. From the Drudgereport:



You know, with all of the conspiracies that the liberals have thrown out in an attempt to sway the election, John Kerry should be winning by a landslide. Now why isn't that happening?

Bogus, BS Story. CBS News strikes again.

Not true. Two journalists from ABC affilliate KSTP shot video of the facility nine days after the fall of Bahgdad. One of the journalists, Joe McCaffrey points out the markings on the crates for the facility and the IAEA seals on the crates. The video also shows that the south side of the camp was well guarded, but the northside was weakly watched.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

ABC News had embedded journalists with the military that have disputed the chemicals were moved prior to the United States taking control of the facility. They broadcast a video showing HMX barrels an U.N. sealed doors in April of 2003.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847

[/i]

See also : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

Dang It Mike! Ya beat me to it!

 

[TwistofFat]

(From NRO - http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200410282152.asp) Normally take NRO with a shaker of nacl, but valid questions).

Problem one: Take a look at the orange label on the container, in this photo.
It says, “EXPLOSIV EXPLOSIVE 1.1 D 1”. (The same label can be purchased here.)

There are three explosives we are looking for here:

HMX, cyclotetramethylene-tetranitramine, also called Tetrahexamine Tetranitramine
RDX, Cyclotrimethylene trinitramine, and

PETN, Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate

​

According to this chart from GlobalSecurity.org, the 1.1D classification can be used for the storage and transport of quite a few high powered explosives. Among them are:

Cyclotetramethylene-tetranitramine, wetted or HMX, wetted or Octogen, wetted with not less than 15 percent water, by mass
Cyclotrimethylene-trinitramine, wetted or Cyclonite, wetted or Hexogen, wetted or RDX, wetted with not less than 15 percent water by mass

Pentaerythrite tetranitrate, wetted or Pentaerythritol tetranitrate, wetted, or PETN, wetted with not less than 25 percent water, by mass, or Pentaerythrite tetranitrate, or Pentaerythritol tetranitrate, or PETN, desensitized with not less than 15 percent phlegmatizer by mass.

​

So - this orange 1.1 D is the label we would look for on HMX, RDX, or PETN. But did those explosives in these containers have 15 or 25 percent water or other dilution liquid in them? Or did they look pretty dry in that desert?

And as we look at the rest of that chart, we see that a lot of other explosives that fall in the 1.1 D category.

Specifically there are 79 other substances and types of explosive material and supporting equipment that would get the 1.1 D label, including gunpowder, flexible detonating cord, photo-flash bombs, mines, nitroglycerin, rocket warheads, grenades, fuzes, torpedoes and charges. And few of them require any liquid dilution.

Is what’s on this news report video HMX, RDX, or PETN? Possibly, if the material inside is some sort of diluting liquid that we didn’t see on the tape, or if the Iraqis were storing these high-grade explosives in an unsafe manner. Or it could be one of the 79 other substances. Or some containers could have the big three, and some could have others.

As usual, it is foolish for folks to jump in and conclude that they know what was in the containers without gathering all of the facts. How many Kerry-backing writers who will cite this video as a smoking gun are familiar with what materials are classified 1.1D?

Problem two: This doesn’t quite explain the internal IAEA documents ABC reported that suggested that significant amounts were gone before the invasion began. “Confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.” It all suddenly came back before the war? Or is what we’re seeing in the video three tons?

Problem three: This doesn’t quite explain the Pentagon’s satellite photos of large numbers of trucks leaving the facilities before the war.

Problem four: This doesn’t quite explain how all this could be taken down a road full of heavily armed U.S. forces, under skies full of coalition warplanes. The Pentagon called the removal of that much material from the facility during or after the war “very highly improbable”:

Col. David Perkins commanded the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, the division that led the charge into Baghdad. Those troops first captured the Iraqi weapons depot from which 377 tons of explosives disappeared.
Two major roads that pass near the Al-Qaqaa installation were filled with U.S. military traffic in the weeks after April 3, 2003, when U.S. troops first reached the area, the colonel said.

Perkins and others in the military acknowledged that some looting at the site had taken place. But he said a large-scale operation to remove the explosives using trucks almost certainly would have been detected.

​

Problem five: This doesn’t quite explain why none of this explosive has to date shown up in any Iraqi insurgent attack.

 

[michaeledward]

As usual, it is foolish for folks to jump in and conclude that they know what was in the containers without gathering all of the facts. How many Kerry-backing writers who will cite this video as a smoking gun are familiar with what materials are classified 1.1D?

Yes ... Kerry-backing writers like ..... David Kay (former head of the Iraq Survey Group, the team tasked by President Bush to find the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction)

Yes, there are many unanswered questions ... but ... there is an old saying in Tennessee ... well, in Texas ... maybe it's in Tennesse too ...

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck .... You can't fool me again.

 

[TwistofFat]

Like I said Mike...a shaker of salt. I did not selectivly edit the link, but the questions are valid.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I thought this was an interesting analysis of Republican defenses of the issue of the explosives.

For Bush, Too Late for Honesty

Missing munitions spark an explosion of administration excuses.

Jonathan Chait

On Monday morning, the New York Times reported that 380 tons of powerful explosives had disappeared from a military complex in Iraq that the American military didn't safeguard. An honest supporter of President Bush would reply to this by arguing that, despite this mistake, there are plenty of good reasons to reelect him anyway.

The week before the election, though, is too late for honesty, especially for a campaign so committed to the infallibility of its candidate. And so Bush and his allies have been forced to argue that no, neglecting to guard a lifetime supply of bomb-making material does not in any way reflect poorly on Bush's military strategy. Indeed, if anybody is tainted here, it's Kerry. This exercise in defending the indefensible offers a kind of morbid hilarity. So far, I count seven distinct lines of argument:

1. Look at the bright side. Kerry, insists Vice President Dick Cheney, fails to "mention the 400,000 tons of weapons and explosives that our troops have captured and are destroying." This is sort of like arguing, "Your honor, the record should reflect the countless times I've driven to work without swerving onto the sidewalk and mowing down dozens of pedestrians."

2. Consider the source. Why, Republicans ask, are we finding out just now about this? Well, for starters, it was less than two weeks ago that the International Atomic Energy Agency informed our government of the lost explosives. A Wall Street Journal editorial imputed dark motives to the fact that the information leaked, without explaining why the U.S. government was keeping it secret in the first place, or why the fact that it leaked detracts from the substance of the story.

3. Don't judge. As the Journal pleaded, "Some 380 tons of frightfully powerful stuff has gone missing, and the objective before us should be to locate it, not locate blame." In other words, the military can't search for the bombs unless the voters withhold judgment about Bush.

4. Kerry reads newspapers. "What would he do as president? Get up every morning and say, 'I'm going to govern based on what I find in the newspapers?' " sneered Karl Rove. "John Kerry will say anything he believes will help him politically," wrote Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman, "and today he is grasping at headlines to obscure his record of weakness and indecision in the war on terror." The horror — Kerry is letting world news infect his judgment.

5. Kerry's a hypocrite. "After repeatedly calling Iraq the wrong war and a diversion," Bush declared, "Sen. Kerry this week seemed shocked to learn that Iraq was a dangerous place full of dangerous weapons." This is a bizarre inversion of reality. Bush justified the war primarily as a way to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists, yet his handling of it led to exactly that result.

6. Kerry hates the troops. "The senator is denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in the field," Bush insisted. By this logic, any criticism of Bush's military plan amounts to blaming the troops. By the same Orwellian logic, statements like the one from Bush supporter Rudy Giuliani — "The actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough?" — do not count as blaming the troops.

7. It was like that when we got here. Republicans seized on an NBC News report that a U.S. Army brigade had inspected the site in April 2003 and found no weapons. This claim fell apart after NBC and the brigade commander said the Americans merely stopped at the site without inspecting it. Bush and his allies have since retreated to claiming that the explosives may have been moved before the war started. This is possible, though highly unlikely. David Kay, the man Bush chose to search for WMD in Iraq, said such a transfer probably would have been detected by U.S. satellites. And KSTP, a Minneapolis TV station that had staff embedded with troops who went into the area, has footage of U.S. troops coming across what look to weapons inspectors very much like the explosives in question, cracking open locks and then departing. There have been reports of systematic looting since.

But even in the unlikely event that the weapons disappeared before the war, it would hardly forgive Bush's policy of invading without enough troops to secure vital weapons caches. The point is that he didn't plan for the peace, which included safeguarding weapons. Suppose it turned out that the pedestrians struck by our reckless driver all suffered fatal heart attacks moments before they were run over. Sure, the driver would be exonerated of their deaths. But as far as evaluating his driving skills — or Bush's war-planning skills — it makes no difference at all.



Regards,


Steve

 

[Makalakumu]

Check it out AP/Fox/CNN:

WASHINGTON — A U.S. Army officer came forward Friday to say a team from his 3rd Infantry Division took about 250 tons of munitions and other material from the Al-Qaqaa (search) arms-storage facility soon after Saddam Hussein's regime fell in April 2003.

Explosives were part of the load taken by the team, but Major Austin Pearson was unable to say what percentage they accounted for. The material was then destroyed, he said.

The Pentagon believes the disclosure helps explain what happened to 377 tons of high explosives that the International Atomic Energy Agency said disappeared after the U.S.-led invasion.

Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita acknowledged the Defense Department (search) did not have all the answers and could not yet account for all of the missing explosives, but stressed that the major's disclosure was a significant development in unraveling the mystery.

"We've described what we know, and as we know more we'll describe that," said DiRita.

Pearson, accompanied by DiRita, appeared at a Pentagon news conference and said his team's mission in April 2003 was to clear material from the Al-Qaqaa facility in order to secure it for U.S. forces. He admitted he was not an explosives expert.


The IAEA reported the disappearance of the explosives to the United Nations on Monday, suggesting they had fallen into the hands of looters after American troops had swept through the area.

U.S. military officials have retorted that they suspect the munitions were removed by Iraqis before Saddam was ousted from power on April 9, 2003.

The officer's story came the morning after new videotape surfaced supporting the contention that the explosives were still at the base following Saddam's fall.

Videotape shot by a Minnesota television crew traveling with U.S. troops in Iraq on April 18, 2003 shows what appeared to be high explosives still in barrels bearing IAEA seals.

The video was taken by a reporter and cameraman employed by KSTP, an ABC affiliate in St. Paul. It was broadcast nationally Thursday on the ABC national network.

"The photographs are consistent with what I know of Al-Qaqaa," David A. Kay, the former American official who directed the hunt in Iraq for unconventional weapons and visited the site, told The New York Times. "The damning thing is the seals. The Iraqis didn't use seals on anything. So I'm absolutely sure that's an IAEA seal."

The Pentagon late Thursday released a satellite photograph of Al-Qaqaa taken on March 17, 2003, just before the war. It showed showing several bunkers, one with two tractor-trailers next to it.

Senior Defense officials said their photo shows that the Al-Qaqaa facility "was not hermetically sealed" after international weapons inspectors had paid their last visits to the facility earlier in the month.

Officials were analyzing the image and others for clues into when the nearly 380 tons of explosives were taken. The munitions included HMX and RDX, key components in plastic explosives, which insurgents in Iraq have used in bomb attacks.

The Pentagon insisted that the image shows the Iraqis were moving something at the site before the first U.S.-launched bombs fell.

Meanwhile, an IAEA report obtained by FOX News said the inspectors noted that despite the fact that the Al-Qaqaa bunkers were locked, ventilation shafts remained open and provided easy access to the explosives.

The IAEA can definitively say only that the documented ammunition was at the facility in January; in March, an agency spokesman conceded, inspectors only checked the locked bunker doors.

The question of what happened to the explosives has become a major issue in the closing days of the 2004 presidential campaign.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry says the missing explosives — powerful enough to demolish a building, bring down a jetliner or even trigger a nuclear weapon — are another example of the Bush administration's poor planning and incompetence in handling the war in Iraq.

President Bush says the explosives were possibly removed by Saddam's forces before the invasion.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld entered the debate Thursday, suggesting the 377 tons of explosives were taken away before U.S. forces arrived, saying any large effort to loot the material afterward would have been detected.

"We would have seen anything like that," he said in one of two radio interviews he gave at the Pentagon. "The idea it was suddenly looted and moved out, all of these tons of equipment, I think is at least debatable."

The bunker with the trucks parked next to it in the Pentagon's satellite image is not one known to have contained any of the missing explosives, and Defense spokesman DiRita said Thursday the image only shows that there was some Iraqi activity at the base on March 17.

DiRita acknowledged that the image says nothing about what happened to the explosives.

Rumsfeld, in one radio interview, also cast doubt on the suggestion by one of his subordinates that Russian soldiers assisted Iraqis in removing the munitions.

The Washington Times on Thursday quoted John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, who said he believed Russian special-forces personnel, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material from Al-Qaqaa.

Shaw said he believed the munitions were moved to Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 invasion.

Senior Defense officials urged caution over the Washington Times article because they could not verify its allegations as true.

"I have no information on that at all, and cannot validate that even slightly," Rumsfeld said.

The article prompted an angry denial from Moscow.

At the core of the issue is whether the explosives were moved before or after U.S. forces reached that part of the country in early April.

No one has been able to provide conclusive evidence either way, although Iraqi officials blamed the munitions' disappearance on poor U.S. security after Baghdad fell.

The Pentagon has said it is looking into the matter, and officials note that 400,000 tons of recovered Iraqi munitions have either been destroyed or are slated to be destroyed.

FOX News' Bret Baier, Ian McCaleb and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

[michaeledward]

This just in . . . .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6424036/

Missing antiaircraft missiles alarm aides
Up to 4,000 surface-to-air missiles unaccounted for in Iraq
WASHINGTON - Several thousand shoulder-fired missiles — the kind that could be used to shoot down aircraft — are missing in Iraq, and their disappearance has prompted U.S. military and intelligence analysts to increase sharply their estimate of the number of such weapons that may be at large, administration officials said yesterday.

Some U.S. analysts figure that as many as 4,000 surface-to-air missiles once under the control of Saddam Hussein's government remain unaccounted for. That would raise the number of such missiles outside government hands worldwide to about 6,000.
But a senior defense official said yesterday that military intelligence analysts are having difficulty estimating just how many of the portable missiles may have vanished and how many of those may be in working order and therefore a threat to U.S. and other aircraft.