NEWS: The Missing Explosives

POLITICS: The Missing Explosives

The explosives missing from an Iraqi military bunker in Al Qaqaa has become the central story in the final fight for the presidency as the election date of Nov 2nd grows closer.

The New York Times is reporting that it has videotaped evidence obtained from a Minneapolis television station that was embedded with the troops who entered the sealed bunker which shows troops breaking IAEA seals on explosive crates which are presumably in the bunker in question. The reporters also state that the explosives were left unguarded. Weapons experts familiar with the Iraqi inspectors say the location looks identical to the Al Qaqaa bunker.

This contradicts a story by the Washington Times, which reported on its own that the Russians were working closely with Iraq and has documents reporting that the weapons were removed by Russian Special Forces. The Russians reportedly tipped off Iraq to the invasion plans and helped them move the explosives, as well as WMDs, to unknown locations. The reporter of this story has also said that the White House knew about this, but certain people were reluctant to smear the Russians without proper evidence. Due to the story being leaked to the Kerry campaign regarding the missing explosives, sources have started to come out with what they have in an effort to "get the truth out."

Though the stories contradict each other, the details of both should become more clear in the next few days. I caution my fellow truth-seekers to be confident of their facts before going to the polls in anger.

So let me get this straight...the Russians moved WMDs out of Iraq and hid them. The Bush administration knew this but didn't want to 'smear' Russia. Meanwhile, Bush gets hammered by the left ( and less publicly by many on the right ) for invading a country on false grounds and STILL his administration doesn't let the cat out of the bag. This scenario is about as likely as me becoming the next Mr. Universe.

The juxstaposition of the two stories above may suggest that there's equal evidence to support both sides. There isn't. As Daivd Kay has pointed out, the evidence is unambiguous. There is videotaped evidence that the explosives, under IAEA seal, were still in the bunker after the war began. The Moonie Times story is not only risibly implausible on its face but contradicted by clear evidence. This can be easily seen by the fact that niether Administration officials nor conservative bloggers can figure out which alternative explantion--no one alike, no one remotely consistent with the evidence--they want to run with. And, of course, the Administration knows this perfectly well--which is why they're sendingRudy Guiliani around to slander the troops in order to excuse their own incompetence.

The New York Times story--which is really the story of the Iraq government--is solid, the kabuki show being put on by conservative Derrideans nothwithstanding.



[Edited on Oct 31, 2004 7:22PM]

Here is the news report (takes a while to load, and starts with a commercial) This is most certainly a fraction of the footage they have.

CHA CHING


[Edited on Oct 31, 2004 7:53PM]

Yeah, I like the implication there that the NY Times is equivalent to the Washington Times.

The NY Times is widely regarded as the paper of record. The Washington times is a right-wing, Moonie-owned, talboid-esque "newspaper". The Washington POST is a reputable newspaper.

'Zactly, apples and oranges

As a DC resident I gotta say...

Washington Times == Moonie Loonies

The Washington Times has all the integrity of a wet piece of toilet paper.

That's a little harsh - the Washington Times is still useful for wiping your ass with, as long as you don't read it while on the toilet.

The only thing missing from that sentence is:

Well, one of two things is going on. Either the W. Times is right, or the W. Times is full of shit.

The problem is that we don't know yet. Presumably, of this is true, someone else will pick up the story. And, if its not true...well, that will become self-evident.

I know which way I'm betting, thus far.

*cough*fullofshit*cough*

Actually, we already know that the Moonie Times is wrong. If the Russians took the weapons away before the war, it becomes rather difficult to explain why they were still there after the war (as has been incontrovertibly captured on video.)

god love the 21st century!!!!

The situation isn't quite that simple. I've been following this closely on CNN, and from what I understand, here's how it stands:

1. The Pentagon provided a satellite photograph of a truck near one of the al-Qaqaa bunkers. They claimed, when this was released, that this supported the idea that Russian special ops had been moving the munitions out to Syria. However, the bunker that the truck was at was known to not contain any of the disputed munitions, and the administration itself called the photograph "inconclusive."

2. The same day that this photo was released, the video surfaced. It was taken on April 18th, placing it after the date of the satellite imagery. The video showed an IAEA seal on a bunker and what has been identified (although not conclusively) as explosives matching the description of the ones currently unaccounted for.

The reporter who was embedded with the 101st, 2nd Battalion reported that the bunker was not sealed up after the troops left.

3. Last week the Pentagon held a press conference involving a Major who had overseen a munitions removal and disposal operation at al-Qaqaa on April 13th. According to his report, a total of 250 tons of munitions were removed from that facility at that time, including phosphorous grenades, AK-47 ammo and "plastic explosives." The Major stated that he could not say how much of the 250 tons was taken up by the explosives, or if any of the explosives were the disputed munitions; he stated that it was a general term used to cover a number of different explosives types.

However, he did state that only those bunkers that were open and easily accessible were searched, that he did not see any IAEA seals, that he was not ordered to check for those seals, and that nothing was cut (including seals or locks) to enter any secured bunkers.

So what we're left with at this point is the possibility that some of the explosives were removed by the Russians, the possibility that an unspecified amount of the explosives were removed on April 13th, and proof that at least some of the disputed weapons were still there on April 18th.

Bottom line: we don't know how much of the explosives were removed or by whom. At best, the options that would draw responsibility away from the current administration are speculative and/or inconclusive.


[Edited on Nov 01, 2004 2:47AM]

That's insane- if the IAEA knew there were explosives there, why didn't they go straight there after the war finished, instead of all this crap coming up about 18months after the event?

Sounds like Republican propoganda, aimed at morons...

The Russians were against the war in Iraq, but only because it was unjustified- they weren't "on Iraq's side" or anything. This smacks somewhat of the ignorance and suspicion that perpetuated the Cold War, resurfacing- I sincerely hope it will swiftly go back from whence it came.

[Edited on Nov 01, 2004 2:47AM]

Republican propoganda???

Try democratic propoganda. You should really try to keep abreast with the times.

The New York Times waited for over two weeks to bring this story out. Why?
Because they wanted to check the facts? Highly unlikely. They wanted to influence the election. Plain and simple. Everyone is still trying to figure out what exactly went on, that is everyone except Kerry, who is running around saying Bush should have guarded those weapons.

The facts do not support your assertions, and if our forces had moved to secure the explosives first thing, there would be no speculation involved.

1)Please provide evidence that the Times sat on the story intentionally. Moreover, your whole argument is stupid, since the story was not initiated by the Times's but by the Iraqi government. But, then, I'm sure they're part of the consipracy too!
2)Again, despite your caricature of postmodernism, the evidence strongly supports the NYT, and does not support yours. You have not refuted any of the evidence cited by Kay or the NYT, because you can't.

However, we can see what's going on here. Bush is in trouble, and the RNC and mid-right McCarthys like Glenn Reynolds and Roger Simon and their readers are starting up a "stab in the back" theory; since nobody would ever voluntarily choose to vote against Dear Leader, if Bush loses it's because of a vast conspiracy by The New York Times, which is out to get Bush because it publishes accurate stories about Iraq. (And as for the fact that the news pages of the NYT were highly slanted in favor of the war, and Elisabeth Bumiller's fawning "White House Letters," and the stories about John Kerry's "butler," and the respectufl coverage given the Smear Boat Veterans--well, they'll ignore that because they're embarassing hacks.)

[Edited on Nov 01, 2004 8:28AM]

So, we have two political parties tearing an issue apart, focusing on every word of every report, for real or imagined political gain. Boy, that's just shocking! That's just...politics as usual. *Walks over to tv and turns it off when political mouthpieces appear* .Tuesday can't come fast enough.