Video Suggests Explosives Disappeared After U.S. Took Control

ABC News ^ | October 29, 2004 | Martha Raddatz

[unspun]

Kay pointed out that these photos of the evacuation of bunkers represented organized action, not looting.

[WildTurkey]

are you talking about David Kay? he was on CNN.

Yes. I just caught that as I finally got to that part of the thread.

[sinkspur]

but you still have to worry that the media has enough to package a story to spoon feed them, and there is too much uncertainty to be able to hit back with some consistent rebuttal.

I don't worry about it at all. There are enough stories out there that voters will simply discount all of them.

That's good for Bush.

[oceanview]

why couldn't the ABC video have come from Al Qa Qaa? did the reporters not know where they were, or are they lying?

[CFC__VRWC]

This story is out of control - all these different things cannot be true.

It's a total wash - there's so much conflicting information, so many charges and countercharges and disagreeing "experts" that most people are just going to throw up their hands in disgust and tune it out. In the weeks following the election the results of the investigation will be released (conclusion: we don't have a friggin' clue what happened to the explosives, or how much was there), the media will chew it over for a day or so, and then it will be forgotten.

[WildTurkey]

He asserted there just weren't enough troops to cover this compound, but stressed how huge it was -- roughly the size of Manhattan.

But there were sure enough troops to nail a convoy of trucks trying to leave the compound!

[jwalsh07]

Darn. Did you do that right off the top of your head?

Piece of cake.

[cyncooper]

Because it was supposed to be from a reporter embedded with the 101st and they were there on April 10, not April 18.

I would suggest it is very possible it is another site that was searched on April 18. In fact, it has been noted on one of these threads (I'd have to check if it's this one or another) that the embedded reporter wasn't sure and was checking. Evidently ABC wanted to rush forward.

OK, Here's the post noting the embed's questions: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1260694/posts?page=70#70

[rwfromkansas]

still not mentioned elsewhere besides ABC as far as I know.

Not even MSNBC has it, and they love this sort of thing (have the Halliburton thing highlighted).

[unspun]

But there were sure enough troops to nail a convoy of trucks trying to leave the compound!

Where did that report come from (not doubting you, just want to see)?

[ironman]

"PENTAGON REACTION FROM SPOKESMAN LARRY DiRITA: "We know there were other units in the area who acknowledged finding explosives. It's not at all clear what's in the photos indicate. Some Explosive Ordinance Destruction units have a recollection that some high explosives in the area were taken out of there."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/NotedNow/story?id=156246

This explosives story is convoluted as heck.

[WildTurkey]

Where did that report come from (not doubting you, just want to see)?

No reports. I just remember the original coverage which had all the soldiers and marines talking about nailing anything that moved and various people talking the last few days about our coverage on the ground and in the air that basically no way could a convoy move without us knowing it. Even if our troops had moved through and left, their rear was covered by troops on the ground and air surveillance.

[rocklobster11]

Because it was supposed to be from a reporter embedded with the 101st and they were there on April 10, not April 18.

You have made many posts about them being there on April 10, not April 18. I would suggest watching the video from the local station from which this thread came. The reporter clearly states that they were staying several miles south of Al QaQaa for several weeks, and that on April 18, their crew went with soldiers 2-3 miles north to this facility. At the time, they did not know it was Al QaQaa, but they have since determined based on their GPS coordinates and the distance traveled that it was the southern part of Al QaQaa. There are many problems with the story, but April 18 ain't one of them

The problems are that the video and pictures show that they came upon bunkers that had IAEA seals, but doesn't show them entering them. They also show them using bolt cutters to cut into a different bunker that did not have an IAEA seal. A 1.1D explosive could be almost anything, and there is no idea even how much of whatever it was they saw was there. Also, the 101st says that the area they were in was within their security perimeter. Finally, someone must have proof of what happened to those containers in the video. The troops must have recorded when they disposed of it, as I'm sure that nobody was looting barrels of stuff, regardless of what it was. To date, we know that no HME or RDX was found, but we don't know how much other stuff was found at that site and destroyed. There must be records. If nothing was ever found, tracked, or destroyed from that site, then this would be a blunder that I can't explain.

[infohawk]

Several problems. The new video seems difficult to correlate with the totality of the evidence.

It appears that the date of the video indicates that the video was taken about a week after the 101st passed through the site.

What were the trucks in the satellite photo doing at the facility?

Even assuming the explosives were at the site after the U.S. military passed through, how could 380 tons of explosives be carted out unnoticed? Jerry Bremer stated on Fox News this morning that the U.S. military owned the roads and the sky around the facility for weeks after the fall of Baghdad. Also consider that approximately 40 large trucks and a significant amount of manpower and time would be necessary to remove the explosives.

IAEA documents recently obtained by Fox News indicate that one of the explosives (RDX or HMX?)existed in a quantity of three tons, not approximately 150 (sorry I can't remember the exact number).

In terms of the election, this issue will end up being a draw on the merits. The position of the administration is that no conclusions should be drawn before a formal investigation is conducted. This is a very responsible position. The left will continue to scream "lie, lie, cover-up, incompetence, failure, etc." They will try in futility to prove their claim. They will fail. The administration and its supporters will rightly point out the weight of the evidence against the left's rush to judgment. The electorate will see it as a "he said, she said" and chalk it up to politics. In other words, what is left of the persuadable vote in the electorate will end up not knowing what to think.

The political danger for John Kerry is that he may come across as too over-the-top in his attacks. He could be seen as indirectly attacking the troops. He also poses the risk of seeming to eager to attack the President and the mission, especially considering the majority of Americans give the President high marks on his national security efforts and overall likability. Americans don't like to see someone being piled on unfairly. The transparent media efforts to attack the President may add to the public's anger. I have always believed that the reason the Democrats did so well in the 1998 elections was because large segments of the public thought we were going to far, rightly or wrongly, in attacking Clinton over Monica Lewinsky. I'm hoping Kerry just turns off any remaining persuadable voters.
The left is growing more and more shrill in the closing days of this election. They may very well be overplaying their hand.

[dfwgator]

There were a hell of a lot of SNAFUs during WWII, you didn't see the Republicans attack FDR for Operation Market Garden, or Pearl Harbor or for the casualties sustained on Omaha Beach.

[cyncooper]

Then the Pentagon and other sources left April 18 out of their timeline all week. They specifically issued a timeline you know, and April 18 is not on it as regards Al Qaqaa.

I think the date is indeed a problem for this particular story.

[infohawk]

I was thinking the same thing about wars in general. It would be interesting to review some history about wartime political opposition. Not objection to a war in particular, but constant attacks about strategy and tactics coming from an opposition party. My suspicion is that we are living in unique times. I sincerely hope that the constant negativity and attacks on a President conducting a war will create a backlash against the Dems. I'm pretty confidant in a Bush victory. If, however, Kerry were to win, I would be sickened.

[MP5SD]

According to the IATA Trinitrophenol or Picric Acid UN0154 does not have a subsidiary risk as a toxic inhalation hazard and therefore would not be required to labeled as such. An MSDS may say it is a risk, but that doesn't make it a toxic (poison)inhalation hazard.For example smoking shag carpet may be a risk, but not poisonous. I'm just going on the containers I see.

[rocklobster11]

Then the Pentagon and other sources left April 18 out of their timeline all week

There was a thread yesterday from someone who's friend was in Iraq, and he said that some troops HQ'd for 2 weeks near Al Qaqaa right after April 10. See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1259535/posts for more info, but here is the main part:

As soon as this Al-Qaqaa story "broke" I thought of calling my friend (an officer and unit commander attached to the 101st during Operation Iraqi Freedom) to find out what really happened. Well, I just got off the phone with him and after joking that he was directing traffic for all the Iraqi trucks that looted explosives out of Al-Qaqaa, I asked him what this story is really all about.

Turns out several of his unit's men were with the 2nd Brigade that first arrived at Al-Qaqaa, secured it, spent the night, then moved out. The day they left, the 101st Division Command Staff (which my friend was attached to) then moved into Al-Qaqaa and set up temporary HQ for TWO WEEKS! While there he walked around and inside bunkers and saw all sorts of stuff stacked up and lying around: AK-47s, RPGs, rockets, bombs, ammo, and black powder used in making weapons as that's what the Al-Qaqaa facility was - manufacture and storage.

Did he see any IAEA sealed bunkers? No. Did he see anything other than field weapons/munitions? No. Did they allow Iraqis to drive trucks into HQ and help themselves to weapons? Gimme a break! Would the 101st Division Command Staff HQ next to 380 tons of HMX, RDX and PETN during combat? I would think not.

The complete pentagon timeline is either not being released because

• there is some classified information that would need to be released that is being debated
• they are gathering all the info to present as a coherent case to kill this story once and for all, and plan on getting the final story out sometime tomorrow
• they are incompetent

We'll see in the next few days.

[rocklobster11]

NOTE: The video crew admits that they didn't go into bunkers with IAEA seals.

A 5 Eyewitness News crew in Iraq may have been just a door away from material that could be used to detonate nuclear weapons. The evidence is in videotape shot by Reporter Dean Staley and Photographer Joe Caffrey at or near the Al Qaqaa munitions facility

Go http://www.kstp.com/ to watch the video. In it, they go thru one bunker, using bolt cutters on a chain locking the door. then they come upon the one with the IAEA seal, and the soldier says "This one's going to be alot harder to get into".

Ultimately they say they never got in, but they show a picture of a soldier climbing up to look thru a vent in the side of the building.