|
|
Weapons Cache? What Weapons Cache? Pt. II
Ok, first we hear the cache of explosives was gone just before our troops got there. But how could they have gotten rid of that many tons of explosives that quickly? Probably because there really wasn't all that much explosive material there in the first place:
The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing — presumably stolen due to a lack of security — was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility.But the 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.
As my wife is wont to say, "ya think?"
No wonder CBS wanted to sit on this thing until the weekend before the election. It would've given them just enough time to make an impact before the pajama people took them apart like a badly built lego toy. I guess the Gray Lady, being the Gray Lady, just didn't think the aforementioned pajama people were really all that much to worry about. Now all that's left is to pick a snazzy "-gate" name and nail another journalist's head to the wall.
Yeah, yeah, I know... "Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence." They're probably just as surprised they've stepped on another land mine as we are. Doesn't mean I can't have fun waving their leg at them.
Via Jason.
How about reading the entire artical?? What about this part??
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.
hmmm - let's do a quick fact review:
1 - The articles/allegations/lies claim that 380 tons of high explosives went missing. Initially, there was a claim that it was a mixed bag of RDX and HMX explosives, but as the articles that I've seen only reference the RDX, and that is, shockingly enough, the same amount that this article quotes, I'm going to make the leap of faith to say we're talking one and the same.
2 - the article didn't say the HMX materials were missing. they said the seals were 'potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats'. Potentially means to me that they weren't actually ineffective, however, that they could be if someone wanted to.
3 - from the original article, it appears that these caches are now guarded, so no further incidents should arise.
Posted by: Ron on October 28, 2004 03:10 PMStill wondering about that RDX? Or the IAEA stretching things into a lie so elBaradei can hope Kerry wil let him keep his job?
?RDX never at alQQ? And never sealed?
IAEA spokeswoman Melissa interview on ABC (Australia - ) - "IAEA inspectors visited Al-Mahaweel on Jan. 15, 2003, and verified the RDX inventory by weighing sampling," Fleming said. She said the RDX at Al-Mahaweel was not under seal [emphasis added - JSA] but was subject to IAEA monitoring."
Al-Mahaweel?
"The bulk of the RDX was stored at another site that was under Al Qaqaa's jurisdiction," IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said.
She says that the report seen by ABC only covers the Al Qaqaa site itself.
The second site, Al Mahaweel, is roughly 45 kilometres from Al Qaqaa.