Blame Game! White House blames Russia and France for missing 'splosives

[question]

White House: Russians took Iraq explosives

Washington, DC, Oct. 28 (UPI) -- The Bush administration's latest explanation for 380 tons of explosives missing from Iraq is that Russian troops took them, the Financial Times said Thursday.

Deputy Undersecretary for Defense John Shaw told the newspaper there was intelligence the French were also involved in the removal of the explosives from the al-Qaqaa depot before the war began last year.

"For nearly nine months, my office has been aware of an elaborate scheme set up by Saddam Hussein to finance and disguise his weapons purchases through his international suppliers, principally the Russians and French," Shaw said. "That network included ... employing various Russian units on the eve of hostilities to orchestrate the collection of munitions and assure their transport out of Iraq via Syria."

The Russian embassy in Washington rejected the claims as "nonsense," saying there were no Russian military in the country at the time.

Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday there was a "very real possibility" the munitions were taken by the Saddam Hussein regime before U.S. troops arrived at the munitions facility south of Baghdad.

[taken from: Washington Times]

[Element4040]

Ahh yes, let's piss on the Russians some more for our f' up.

Divert attention from the fact that we were told about them and did nothing to secure them.

Wouldn't ya think some satellite photo's of Al-Qaqaa would exist of the Russians taking 40 truckloads of weapons? How about some sat photo's of them being taken across the border to Syria?

Or were we just not paying attention again?

[question]

You're just jumping to conclusions, Joey!

We should kick it sometime dude!

Originally Posted by Element4040

Ahh yes, let's piss on the Russians some more for our f' up.

Divert attention from the fact that we were told about them and did nothing to secure them.

Wouldn't ya think some satellite photo's of Al-Qaqaa would exist of the Russians taking 40 truckloads of weapons? How about some sat photo's of them being taken across the border to Syria?

Or were we just not paying attention again?

Originally Posted by Element4040

Wouldn't ya think some satellite photo's of Al-Qaqaa would exist of the Russians taking 40 truckloads of weapons? How about some sat photo's of them being taken across the border to Syria?

I'll see if I can find the article - but the claims about the Russians and Syria were apparently based on satellite photos -

[h0x0rb0b]

For whatever its worth...

Oct. 28, 2004 - Iraqi officials may be overstating the amount of explosives reported to have disappeared from a weapons depot, documents obtained by ABC News show.

The Iraqi interim government has told the United States and international weapons inspectors that 377 tons of conventional explosives are missing from the Al-Qaqaa installation, which was supposed to be under U.S. military control.

But International Atomic Energy Agency documents obtained by ABC News and first reported on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" indicate the amount of missing explosives may be substantially less than the Iraqis reported.

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.

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

The missing explosives have become an issue in the presidential campaign. Sen. John Kerry has pointed to the disappearance as evidence of the Bush administration's poor handling of the war. The Bush camp has responded that more than a thousand times that amount of explosives or munitions have been recovered or destroyed in Iraq.

Another Concern

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.

ABC News' Martha Raddatz filed this report for "World News Tonight." Luis Martinez contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2004 ABC News Internet Ventures

[question]

I think the amount is inconsequential. The fact that it was there when we invaded, and gone after we were "done", is the important part.

Originally Posted by h0x0rb0b

For whatever its worth...

Oct. 28, 2004 - Iraqi officials may be overstating the amount of explosives reported to have disappeared from a weapons depot, documents obtained by ABC News show.

The Iraqi interim government has told the United States and international weapons inspectors that 377 tons of conventional explosives are missing from the Al-Qaqaa installation, which was supposed to be under U.S. military control.

But International Atomic Energy Agency documents obtained by ABC News and first reported on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" indicate the amount of missing explosives may be substantially less than the Iraqis reported.

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.

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

The missing explosives have become an issue in the presidential campaign. Sen. John Kerry has pointed to the disappearance as evidence of the Bush administration's poor handling of the war. The Bush camp has responded that more than a thousand times that amount of explosives or munitions have been recovered or destroyed in Iraq.

Another Concern

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.

ABC News' Martha Raddatz filed this report for "World News Tonight." Luis Martinez contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2004 ABC News Internet Ventures

The amount does matter and what you site as "fact" isn't necessarily so.

This story has a lot mroe questions than answers right now - to assume the worst because it makes GW look bad is as premature a judgment as asssuming the best because it doesn't.

Originally Posted by question

I think the amount is inconsequential. The fact that it was there when we invaded, and gone after we were "done", is the important part.

[question]

Those videos look awful convincing.

Originally Posted by xiannaix

The amount does matter and what you site as "fact" isn't necessarily so.

This story has a lot mroe questions than answers right now - to assume the worst because it makes GW look bad is as premature a judgment as asssuming the best because it doesn't.

Originally Posted by question

Those videos look awful convincing.

what videos?

do recall an NBC reoprter was with the troops when they camped there - he said they found lots of stuff but not 377 tons of HEs

[question]

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/...144#greenlight

Originally Posted by xiannaix

what videos?

do recall an NBC reoprter was with the troops when they camped there - he said they found lots of stuff but not 377 tons of HEs

Originally Posted by question

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/...144#greenlight

as I said - more questions than answers

[Element4040]

Originally Posted by question

You're just jumping to conclusions, Joey!

We should kick it sometime dude!

I agree buddy, it's been too long. I'm headed out of town tommorrow through the weekend, but I'll holler at ya when I get back.

Hope everything's going good with ya!

Xiannaix, man if you can find a link to the article claiming they have Satellite evidence, I'd sure appreciate it. I'm always curious, I have no agenda.

Originally Posted by Element4040

I agree buddy, it's been too long. I'm headed out of town tommorrow through the weekend, but I'll holler at ya when I get back.

Hope everything's going good with ya!

Xiannaix, man if you can find a link to the article claiming they have Satellite evidence, I'd sure appreciate it. I'm always curious, I have no agenda.

Been looking for it - I may have mistated what I read. I did find comments from General from central command who said there were many vehicles observed entering Syria from Iraq in the 2 days before teh war but that we could do nothing because we gave Saddam 48 hrs...

my major point is that we do not know what happened yet - certainly an important story though

[Element4040]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

Been looking for it - I may have mistated what I read. I did find comments from General from central command who said there were many vehicles observed entering Syria from Iraq in the 2 days before teh war but that we could do nothing because we gave Saddam 48 hrs...

my major point is that we do not know what happened yet - certainly an important story though

I vaguely remember that now that I recollect. There was something going on at the time, you are correct.

I totatlly agree man, no one knows the whole story at this time, except Paul Harvey, he's got the rest......

[johnny861]

I wouldn't blame the Russians for taking the explosives...

Apparently, Saddam default on payments for Russian weapons... It would be like a big Russian repo job...