WMDs for the Taking? (Iraqis looted radioactive materials -- enough for Dirty bombs)

MSNBC ^ | May 19, 2003 | Rod Nordland

[FairOpinion]

Al Tuwaitha’s scientists still can’t fully assess the damage; some areas are too badly contaminated to inspect. “I saw empty uranium-oxide barrels lying around, and children playing with them,” says Fadil Mohsen Abed, head of the medical-isotopes department. Stainless-steel uranium canisters had been stolen.

The looted materials could not make a nuclear bomb, but IAEA officials worry that terrorists could build plenty of dirty bombs with some of the isotopes that may have gone missing.

[Amerigomag]

Incompetance on display?

I'm scratching my head on that one also. As the marines arrived at the sight (prior to invavding Baghdad) there were reports that they had secured the sight for further investigation. After that report I read no further articles stating that the marines had left because they were relieved.

My guess is that the looting took place after we invaded southern Iraq but before we arrived at the sight on our way to Baghdad.

[Destro]

Um----I thought the whole freaking point about invading Iraq was because the possibility was that the UN was not controling WMD (which was good enough for me)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So in we go fight all the way to Baghdad and....nothing! We secure the empty oil ministry building (it has vital records of oil sales and contracts stored there) yet we send not one platoon to secure this "potential WMD" site!! So who do we fire and courtmartial? The buck stops at Gen. Frank? Rumsfeld?

[Allan]

IAEA officials worry

This may not be the real story.
According to international law
IAEA has jurisdiction over this site
however the US
which believes the IAEA is corrupt
does not want it there.

The reports of looting may have been invented
(or simulated)
to give the US an excuse
to retain control

[Destro]

we don't know--and unlike you have not even read that we sent even a platoon there. In reality the looting started on the day that Saddam vanished.

[Amerigomag]

we don't know--and ...have not even read that we sent even a platoon there

There are numerous articles posted on the matter here on FR.

The marines secured the area on or about April 2 and the US military weapons inspection teams went to work on it or about April 10.

[Destro]

link me if u can

[Destro]

This is what this very MSNBC article says: In the rush to Baghdad, Coalition forces raced past most suspected WMD sites, and looters took over.

So I ask again: So who do we fire and courtmartial?

[Amerigomag]

I'm late to take my mom to dinner but if you search for "Al Tuwaitha" you'll find a good article at the top of the list which contains links to three other articles. Good hunting.

[Destro]

This is also what the MSNBC article says: By the time U.S. troops arrived in early April, armed guards were holding off looters—but the Americans only disarmed the guards, Al Tuwaitha department heads told NEWSWEEK. “We told them, ‘This site is out of control. You have to take care of it’,” says Munther Ibrahim, Al Tuwaitha’s head of plasma physics. “The soldiers said, ‘We are a small group. We cannot take control of this site’.” As soon as the Americans left, looters broke in. The staff fled; when they returned, the containment vaults’ seals had been broken, and radioactive material was everywhere.
U.S. officers say the center had already been ransacked before their troops arrived. They didn’t try to stop the looting, says Colonel Madere, because “there was no directive that said do not allow anyone in and out of this place.” Last week American troops finally went back to secure the site. Al Tuwaitha’s scientists still can’t fully assess the damage; some areas are too badly contaminated to inspect. “I saw empty uranium-oxide barrels lying around, and children playing with them,” says Fadil Mohsen Abed, head of the medical-isotopes department. Stainless-steel uranium canisters had been stolen. Some were later found in local markets and in villagers’ homes. “We saw people using them for milking cows and carrying drinking water,” says Ibrahim.

Be it that the looting began before or after the arrival of American forces -- this statement alone They didn’t try to stop the looting, says Colonel Madere, because “there was no directive that said do not allow anyone in and out of this place.” should be enough to send heads rolling. Why no orders? Who was asleep at the wheel? This is gross negligence and incompetence on the part of the "directive" givers.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Oh, please. We wiped out thousands of terrorists and terrorist wannabes (and the rest know we're damn serious), destroyed delivery systems, weapons caches and retrieved more intel in 6 weeks than the international "experts" did in over 12 years. Saddam was mass-murdering his own people way back in the 80s....and continued through the 90s. We did tremendous good in less than 2 months of this campaign in spite of the leftist press and NGO mischief-makers doing their best daily to undermine our efforts and harm this President - and any other accusation is a da*n lie. To paraphrase "bellygirl" "UN-press, you shut the H* up, We'll save civilization!"

[John H K]

2. IMPORTANT NOTE: IAEA worries that "terrorists could build plenty of dirty bombs" with some of the isotopes that have gone missing. Excuuuuuuse me, and that was not WMD and was NOT considered dangerous when Saddam had all this?!!!!!!!!!! And this isn't enough justification for the war, to get this stuff out of Saddam's hands?

You have the mistaken impression that UN resolutions banned Iraq from having anything radioactive. They did nothing of the sort.

These were all legal materials monitored by the IAEA.

Them's the facts. You may not like them, but none of this material was in violation of anything Iraq agreed to. Their nuclear weapons program was shut down; not their nuclear program.

[Amerigomag]

I also read the article. What bothers me is the two distinctly different versions of events that transpired.

I'm inclined to believe the article you posted for two reasons. It's recent and it has sourced quotes which the earlier articles lack.

If events are as portrayed in this article then in one sense Rummy did no better at stopping the prolifereation of radioactive material after hostilities were over than Schwarzkopf did in allowing armed helicopters. Whether this is a hanging offense for Rummy is not yet defined.

It is safe to say to say that these events are in the best interest of only two parties; the American left and the Islamic fundamentalists.

[FairOpinion]

Hah! The "contradictory" descriptions were all from the same article. That should make you wonder even more. We can't post the entire article, so I posted some excerpts, and Destro posted some others, all from the very same article. You may want to go and read the article, the link is in the original post, no subscription required.

[First Amendment]

My guess is that the looting took place after we invaded southern Iraq but before we arrived at the sight on our way to Baghdad.

I remember reading something to that effect. There was concern that the Marines guarding the place might be exposed to radiation, since some of the stuff was open and some buildings had very high radiation levels. From the articles I read at the time, it seemed clear that any looting or stealing had been done before the US military got there.

[Destro]

For some reason FairOpinion is not connecting with my point:

Regarding the contradictions of the local Iraqi or American versions regarding the looting be it that the looting began before or after the arrival of American forces -- the following is not in doubt:

Like I wrote above - this statement alone They [U.S. forces] didn’t try to stop the looting, says Colonel Madere, because “there was no directive that said do not allow anyone in and out of this place.” should be enough to send heads rolling. Why no orders? Who was asleep at the wheel? This is gross negligence and incompetence on the part of the "directive" givers.

Therefore FairOpinion you must come to the following conclusions--if this was a WMD site (and you said it was in the strongest terms) and hence the fact that it was not secured until it was way too late makes that failure a gross violation of the President's mission statement and hence a gross failure on the part of the Defense Dept to carry out the goal of securing POTENTIAL WMD sites.

PS: Too bad I did not get a chance to read proudmary's statement. My loss I am sure.

[FairOpinion]

"the following is not in doubt:"

---

Actually everything is in doubt. There were similar definite statements made about the museum looting, most of them turned out to be incorrect to total fabrications.

We clearly don't have all the facts, none of us really know what exactly happened and when.

There were earlier stories that the Marines had secured Al Tuwaitha and were guarding it, then these looting stories.

The basic war is over, but the "fog of war" persists. It's pretty definite that there is/was nuclear material at Al Tuwaitha, other than that, there are conflicting stories.

[Destro]

I was talking about the statement of Colonel Madere not being in doubt.

"They [U.S. forces] didn’t try to stop the looting, says Colonel Madere, because “there was no directive that said do not allow anyone in and out of this place.”

Fog of war or old fogey in the Defense Dept?

[FairOpinion]

I don't want to get picky, but how do you know what Col. Madere really said, all we have is what the WP SAID he said, and considering we are just finding out about another "respected publication" like the NY Times admitting that their reporter was fabricating quotes out of whole cloth, I wouldn't make any large bets of the accuracy of this WP article either.

For a little different perspective read the article from the UK Telegraph:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/909795/posts

[Destro]

What Col. Madere said is from this article you posted!! Suddenly the article you posted may be a tissue of lies because you failed to grasp its implications in your search for a cheap score against the stupid UN? The implication being that the Defense Dept dropped "the securing of WMD sites" ball? Col. Madere is on record saying he had no orders to secure that site in this MSNBC article. He is not an unamed source. Good enough for me.