Missing explosives overstated

[charrison]

linkage

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 3 tons of RDX was stored at the facility ? a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.

The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the start of the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.



....

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.

 

[ScoobMaster]

I find the last paragraph in that report even more disturbing.......

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.

 

[jjzelinski]

It seems like regardless of the amount of this particular cache, it shouldn't be ingorned that our leaders simply weren't concerned about conventional weapons. For MANY months now there have been complaints about unsecured weapons depots that insurgents may have had access too after then invasion. Our leaders did not at all expect the reception we've thus far recieved and the ramifacations of that will reach much farther than just this incident.

 

[Tab]

Huh? What? This has got to be the most confusing news story ever.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: ScoobMaster
I find the last paragraph in that report even more disturbing.......

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 part I find disturbing is that there were records of 194 tons of HMX and it isn't there now. It disappeared due to the actions and inactions of George W. Bush.

Your byline "only 3 tons reported at facility" is completely misleading. That seems to be a theme with this administration and its supporters.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
It seems like regardless of the amount of this particular cache, it shouldn't be ingorned that our leaders simply weren't concerned about conventional weapons. For MANY months now there have been complaints about unsecured weapons depots that insurgents may have had access too after then invasion. Our leaders did not at all expect the reception we've thus far recieved and the ramifacations of that will reach much farther than just this incident.

It's the apologist mindset.

It's the same mindset that dismissed Abu Ghraib abuses, rapes, murder, etc. as "not as bad as Saddam" and "blowing off a little steam".

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: ScoobMaster
I find the last paragraph in that report even more disturbing.......

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 part I find disturbing is that there were records of 194 tons of HMX and it isn't there now. It disappeared due to the actions and inactions of George W. Bush.

Your byline "only 3 tons reported at facility" is completely misleading. That seems to be a theme with this administration and its supporters.

How is it misleading?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
It seems like regardless of the amount of this particular cache, it shouldn't be ingorned that our leaders simply weren't concerned about conventional weapons. For MANY months now there have been complaints about unsecured weapons depots that insurgents may have had access too after then invasion. Our leaders did not at all expect the reception we've thus far recieved and the ramifacations of that will reach much farther than just this incident.

It's the apologist mindset.

It's the same mindset that dismissed Abu Ghraib abuses, rapes, murder, etc. as "not as bad as Saddam" and "blowing off a little steam".

It was never dismissed, just dealt with in the military court of law.

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: ScoobMaster
I find the last paragraph in that report even more disturbing.......

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 part I find disturbing is that there were records of 194 tons of HMX and it isn't there now. It disappeared due to the actions and inactions of George W. Bush.

Your byline "only 3 tons reported at facility" is completely misleading. That seems to be a theme with this administration and its supporters.

How is it misleading?

Because it implies that there were only 3 tons of explosives at the facility missing when in fact the article says three tons of a specific type of explosives and explicitly mentions the nearly 200 tons of HMX in addition to the RDX.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: ScoobMaster
I find the last paragraph in that report even more disturbing.......

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 part I find disturbing is that there were records of 194 tons of HMX and it isn't there now. It disappeared due to the actions and inactions of George W. Bush.

Your byline "only 3 tons reported at facility" is completely misleading. That seems to be a theme with this administration and its supporters.

How is it misleading?

Because it implies that there were only 3 tons of explosives at the facility missing when in fact the article says three tons of a specific type of explosives and explicitly mentions the nearly 200 tons of HMX in addition to the RDX.

It made for a good teaser, full article is quoted....

 

[ScoobMaster]

It also illustrates that those IAEA seals were a joke on some of those buildings! If their routine inspection consisted of just checking the integrity of the seal, then those buildings could have been emptied even earlier.

 

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: ScoobMaster
It also illustrates that those IAEA seals were a joke on some of those buildings! If their routine inspection consisted of just checking the integrity of the seal, then those buildings could have been emptied even earlier.

Bingo.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
It seems like regardless of the amount of this particular cache, it shouldn't be ingorned that our leaders simply weren't concerned about conventional weapons. For MANY months now there have been complaints about unsecured weapons depots that insurgents may have had access too after then invasion. Our leaders did not at all expect the reception we've thus far recieved and the ramifacations of that will reach much farther than just this incident.

It's the apologist mindset.

It's the same mindset that dismissed Abu Ghraib abuses, rapes, murder, etc. as "not as bad as Saddam" and "blowing off a little steam".

It was never dismissed, just dealt with in the military court of law.

Shall I go pull up the number of posts up here saying it was "a few bad apples", "isolated incidents", "blowing off a little steam", etc.? Perhaps I should pull up equally inane comments from the right-wing media?

 

[judasmachine]

3 tons of such deadly stuff it takes only a couple of ounces to take out a large crowd of people.

You do the math; 16 ounces per pound, and 2000 pounds per ton.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
It seems like regardless of the amount of this particular cache, it shouldn't be ingorned that our leaders simply weren't concerned about conventional weapons. For MANY months now there have been complaints about unsecured weapons depots that insurgents may have had access too after then invasion. Our leaders did not at all expect the reception we've thus far recieved and the ramifacations of that will reach much farther than just this incident.

It's the apologist mindset.

It's the same mindset that dismissed Abu Ghraib abuses, rapes, murder, etc. as "not as bad as Saddam" and "blowing off a little steam".

It was never dismissed, just dealt with in the military court of law.

Shall I go pull up the number of posts up here saying it was "a few bad apples", "isolated incidents", "blowing off a little steam", etc.? Perhaps I should pull up equally inane comments from the right-wing media?

And those few bad apples that were blowing off steam are being dealt with. No excused their actions.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
It seems like regardless of the amount of this particular cache, it shouldn't be ingorned that our leaders simply weren't concerned about conventional weapons. For MANY months now there have been complaints about unsecured weapons depots that insurgents may have had access too after then invasion. Our leaders did not at all expect the reception we've thus far recieved and the ramifacations of that will reach much farther than just this incident.

It's the apologist mindset.

It's the same mindset that dismissed Abu Ghraib abuses, rapes, murder, etc. as "not as bad as Saddam" and "blowing off a little steam".

It was never dismissed, just dealt with in the military court of law.

Shall I go pull up the number of posts up here saying it was "a few bad apples", "isolated incidents", "blowing off a little steam", etc.? Perhaps I should pull up equally inane comments from the right-wing media?

And those few bad apples that were blowing off steam are being dealt with. No excused their actions.

All 50+ of them? What about their superiors, running all the way up to Bush? You know the ones, the ones that condoned violating the Geneva Conventions? Are they going to be tried, too?

 

[NightCrawler]

Conjur has great faith in the integrity of the IAEA seals, because there is no way Saddam would tamper with seals.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
It seems like regardless of the amount of this particular cache, it shouldn't be ingorned that our leaders simply weren't concerned about conventional weapons. For MANY months now there have been complaints about unsecured weapons depots that insurgents may have had access too after then invasion. Our leaders did not at all expect the reception we've thus far recieved and the ramifacations of that will reach much farther than just this incident.

It's the apologist mindset.

It's the same mindset that dismissed Abu Ghraib abuses, rapes, murder, etc. as "not as bad as Saddam" and "blowing off a little steam".

It was never dismissed, just dealt with in the military court of law.

Shall I go pull up the number of posts up here saying it was "a few bad apples", "isolated incidents", "blowing off a little steam", etc.? Perhaps I should pull up equally inane comments from the right-wing media?

And those few bad apples that were blowing off steam are being dealt with. No excused their actions.

All 50+ of them? What about their superiors, running all the way up to Bush? You know the ones, the ones that condoned violating the Geneva Conventions? Are they going to be tried, too?

I beleive there was action taken against the general in charge of the prison. Yes, they are all being taken care of. And there is no proof it got too far up the chain, but that wont stop you from saying otherwise.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison
And those few bad apples that were blowing off steam are being dealt with. No excused their actions.

All 50+ of them? What about their superiors, running all the way up to Bush? You know the ones, the ones that condoned violating the Geneva Conventions? Are they going to be tried, too?

I beleive there was action taken against the general in charge of the prison. Yes, they are all being taken care of. And there is no proof it got too far up the chain, but that wont stop you from saying otherwise.

Gen. Karpinski has been made a scapegoat.

As for the proof:

Start reading

Esp. this:

No Accountability on Abu Ghraib
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/opinion/10fri1.html

And this:
Book says Bush officials warned of prison abuse
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2790432

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison
And those few bad apples that were blowing off steam are being dealt with. No excused their actions.

All 50+ of them? What about their superiors, running all the way up to Bush? You know the ones, the ones that condoned violating the Geneva Conventions? Are they going to be tried, too?

I beleive there was action taken against the general in charge of the prison. Yes, they are all being taken care of. And there is no proof it got too far up the chain, but that wont stop you from saying otherwise.

Gen. Karpinski has been made a scapegoat.

As for the proof:

Start reading

So which one of those links says it getos higher than Karpinski.

 

[conjur]

See the edited post...and...read the thread. It's very educational.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur
See the edited post...and...read the thread. It's very educational.

Which link is it?

 

[conjur]

Jesus Christ...look about 3 posts up to my edited post. Then, start READING. You know, when your eyes view letters that form words that form sentences that convey a thought and it's processed by your brain and recognized as information?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur
Jesus Christ...look about 3 posts up to my edited post. Then, start READING. You know, when your eyes view letters that form words that form sentences that convey a thought and it's processed by your brain and recognized as information?

Not a hard question, well maybe it is for proven liar, which links say approval for abuse went beyond the general in charge?

 

[Grunt03]

No kidding, who didn't think that this was yet another cheap shot just to try and get a few additional votes.
I expected nonething else from the trader and the UN.