Dawia: The Pentagon is trying to muddy the waters and here's why:

5 Eyewitness News Confirms Video Shows Al-Qaqaa
KSTP TV

Friday 29 October 2004

5 EYEWITNESS NEWS can say with much more certainty tonight our crew was at Al Qaaqa. We can also report that at least one of the bunkers our crew saw there contained the high explosive HMX. That is the same type of explosive missing in Iraq, and an ingredient used to manufacture nuclear weapons. If the military was at Al Qaqaa on April 13, 2003, like they say they were, it now appears they left at least some HMX behind,

The new information comes from a tag, about the size of a half dollar bound around one bunker door. After enhancing the video we found the letters IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency, the group inspecting weapons for the UN, on the seal. It also had a number that started with the digits 3611. A former IAEA inspector who was at Al Qaqaa says that matches the series he remembers using there.

Multiple sources now tell us seals like that were placed on bunkers for one reason. "What's behind those doors in HMX" says physicist David Albright. "They only sealed bunkers that had HMX in them. they weren't sealing bunkers that had RDX, detonation cords or other explosive devices."

Today at the Pentagon, Major Austin Pearson, who says his unit removed explosives from Al Qaqaa on April 13, said "I did not see any IAEA seals at the locations we went into."

Also new tonight, weapons inspectors looked at images from our video, a tag on a box reading '1.1 D'. They tell us it is consistent with containers of HMX they found at Al Qaqaa. HMX was closely monitored because it could be used in a nuclear weapons program.


The most important thing to take note of is this: "Major Austin Pearson, who says his unit removed explosives from Al Qaqaa on April 13, said "I did not see any IAEA seals at the locations we went into." Meaning, if he didn't go into any places with IAEA seals, they didn't remove the HMX on the 13th and when the KSTP TV crew arrived on the April 18th, they were still sealed so the explosives were still there at that time.

T_Bone -

That confirms that at least one of the bunkers (somewhere) had a seal with a series of numbers that "a former IAEA inspector" says he "remembers" being used at Al Qaqaa. Another unattributed source without definitive confirmation. Very thin substantiation, if you ask me. Can't the IAEA give us the specific numbers for comparison? That would be helpful.

Let's go ahead and concede, for purposes of argument, that the video is from Al Qaqaa and was taken after the Army demo unit did it's work. That still leaves us only with evidence that at least one bunker still had a seal and still had HMX in it on April 18th. It does not tell us how much "tagged" material remained on April 18th, whether any other bunkers remained undisturbed, who might have removed what before April or between April 18th and the arrival of US inspectors in May, and what may have become of the explosives which were clearly gone by their arrival. It certainly does not definitively make the case that the entire cache of explosives was there, stolen from under our noses and is being used against our troops, as alleged by the NYT. It is an important piece of the puzzle, but it does not constitute the full picture. We need to use our brains here, not our emotions.

And I like the persistent use of the word "sealed" - what they did was identify. The IAEA admits that was not "sealing" the bunkers in the security sense.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Reply #26 By: T_Bone4Justice - 10/31/2004 5:04:58 PM Dawia: The Pentagon is trying to muddy the waters and here's why: 5 Eyewitness News Confirms Video Shows Al-Qaqaa KSTP TV Friday 29 October 2004

You should go back and watch the video that is accessed from the link I provided. Just to the right of the picutre of the soldier is the video link. It's from the guy that was actually there (3rd Inf.) when the video was shot.You guys kepp hammering on these missing explosives. Yet nobody has any proof of what was under IAEA seal. The video ya'll talking about only shows seals, not what's behind them.

The most important thing to take note of is this: "Major Austin Pearson, who says his unit removed explosives from Al Qaqaa on April 13, said "I did not see any IAEA seals at the locations we went into." Meaning, if he didn't go into any places with IAEA seals, they didn't remove the HMX on the 13th and when the KSTP TV crew arrived on the April 18th, they were still sealed so the explosives were still there at that time

Meaning nothing! this is someones opinion, not fact.
From thwe Washington Times:

There was only one problem with the story: There was not a shred of evidence that it was true. The Times quoted unnamed White House and Pentagon officials acknowledging that the explosives vanished sometime after the U.S.-led invasion last year. But named White House and Pentagon officials have said the opposite. And a senior government official told me: "It is very important the world understands that the stuff in Iraq was missing as of April 10, 2003 — the day after Baghdad fell." The Times story also quoted IAEA experts as saying they assumed that it was indeed Saddam who had moved the explosives — before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But, they added, it was possible the explosives were only moved to nearby fields, where the Times suggests they would be "ripe for looting." But how? Looters could not have stuffed 380 tons of explosives into their pockets and purses. To transport that much material would have required 38 large trucks — 10 tons per truck. Before the U.S. invasion, such truck convoys moved about Iraq freely. Once the United States was in occupation, that kind of effort could hardly have gone unnoticed. So this is a murky story at best, and one has to wonder how the Times came to publish it on its front page, just days before the presidential election. The most likely source: Mohammed El Baradei, head of the IAEA. Why might he want to plant such a story? "The U.S. is trying to deny El Baradei a second term," a high U.S. government official told me. "We have been on his case for missing the Libyan nuclear-weapons program and for weakness on the Iranian nuclear-weapons program." Mr. El Baradei also opposed the liberation of Iraq and objects to Washington's tough stance regarding Iran's attempts to develop nuclear weapons. He would like nothing better than to see President Bush defeated. In other words, a senior U.N. official may have attempted to influence the outcome of a U.S. election by spreading false information. And major U.S. media outlets allowed themselves to be manipulated in pursuit of that goal. Call it "Bomb-gate." Or "Al-Qaqaa-gate" — but don't expect the elite media to seriously pursue this or any other scandal in which they themselves may be implicated.

The video ya'll talking about only shows seals, not what's behind them.

Although I haven't seen confirmation of it, it appears likely that the presence of an IAEA seal meant that the bunker housed materials either capable of being utilized in the production of WMD or so highly explosive as to merit identification as such, since they allegedly didn't place such seals on other weapons caches unrelated to potential WMD use, perhaps more specifically use in nuclear weapons. So the question is was that actually Al Qaqaa? And then, if so, what does that mean? We still don't know.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Kerry is not very offensive in his campaign, it may be costing him a lot of votes, but really it shows that he is not as ruthless as other politicians and may be wanting an honest change.

Maybe not diplomacy with the terrorists, but better relations with the UN and our allies, which Bush has alienated.

Just who has alienated who, my friend? For my money, the French, Germans and few others have alienated me, thank you very much, not to mention the schemers at the UN who would love to undermine us while ripping us off for billions.

Where is it written that our allies' preferences or needs trump ours? This whole "offending our allies crap" is just another facet of the MSM's anti-BushSpeak. I don't dispute there are strains, but they need us much more than we need them and and the liberal assumption is that any discord between us and our allies is, mais oui, our (Bush's) fault. I ain't buyin' it.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Kerry is not very offensive in his campaign, it may be costing him a lot of votes, but really it shows that he is not as ruthless as other politicians and may be wanting an honest change.

Considering what a dishonest, offensive and ruthless politician he is, that's gonna be a tough sell.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Dick Morris is still holding out for a Hillary 2008 ticket,

Dillary Plinko!!

Reply #33 By: Grim Xiozan - 10/31/2004 8:31:06 PM Dick Morris is still holding out for a Hillary 2008 ticket,

God I hope not.

Kerry is not very offensive in his campaign, it may be costing him a lot of votes, but really it shows that he is not as ruthless as other politicians and may be wanting an honest change.

You bring up an interesting point. It has been alleged that Clinton did not want a democrat to win this year, and given all the mistakes Kerry has been making, it would take some very dirty tricks, or some huge incompetance on the part of the campaign staff. Now, since Kerry is using most of the Clinton staff, and we know they are very sharp, that kind of rules out incompetance. So the logical assumption is someone is torpedoeing his campaign from the inside. And that fits right in with the original assumption that Clinton does not want a democrat to win this year.