Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Drudge: explosives vanished from iraq 18 months before invasion

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
npincus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:26 PM
Original message
Drudge: explosives vanished from iraq 18 months before invasion
Edited on Mon Oct-25-04 09:26 PM by npincus
http://www.drudgereport.com/

This is "developing"... more fiction from Drudge? He attributes it to NBC news. The headline:

NBCNEWS: HUGE CACHE OF EXPLOSIVES VANISHED FROM SITE IN IRAQ -- AT LEAST 18 MONTHS AGO -- BEFORE TROOPS ARRIVED
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dickie Flatt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. Source: Ed Gillespie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. BULLSHIT. Poor drudge, ALWAYS so WRONG.
ALWAYS so stoopid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. No they didn't
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qanda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Right! Here is a paragraph...
At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said US-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.


I think they're just trying to muddy the waters so that the very stupid base will be left confused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shockingelk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
44. WP article: April 4
"Yesterday" in this article is April 4 2003,

In the first of yesterday's discoveries, the 3rd Infantry Division entered the vast Qa Qaa chemical and explosives production plant and came across thousands of vials of white powder, packed three to a box. The engineers also found stocks of atropine and pralidoxime, also known as 2-PAM chloride, which can be used to treat exposure to nerve agents but is also used to treat poisoning by organic phosphorus pesticides. Alongside those materials were documents written in Arabic that, as interpreted at the scene, appeared to include discussions of chemical warfare.

Link to WP article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juliagoolia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
4. WEll thats even more upsetting
They didnt know it until now?????????????????????????????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qanda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. No...
He says they vanished 18 months ago and the invasion was 19 months ago, so he cannot keep his story straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. TPM
At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said US-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1098677410357
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. thanks trumad...didn't have to go search
Edited on Mon Oct-25-04 09:34 PM by maddezmom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
28. from the uber-liberal jerusalem post
</sarcasm>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Dumbass need to learn some MATH skills. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gauguin57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Invasion began March19, 2003
That's 19 months.

Drudge, get your head outta your ass, man!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Longhorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. Time flies when you're having fun, huh? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
6. How did they know the explosives vanished 18 months ago?
Edited on Mon Oct-25-04 09:29 PM by jdolsen
drudgery is a lying sack of shit. I can't wait for someone to fry his ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Actually, that sounds about right for when the explosives got lost
Just about one month after we invaded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kikiek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
12. Well NBC says it was Sept 4 2003 when the looting started.
Drudge needs to brush up on his math.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Thug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
14. This was tonite's RW talking point on my drive home... /eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bad Thoughts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
15. One of these things is still true:
1. When Bush started the war, the IAEA was unable to continue to monitor the explosives, allowing them to get into the hands of terrorists.

2. When Bush took the shortcut in conducting the war, he failed to secure the explosives, and they got into the hands of terrorists.

In short, because of Bush, explosives got into the hands of terrorists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave502d Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
17. Will his site die when Kerry wins?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spotbird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
18. Good God, it took a whole news cycle to come up with this one.
They usually have the lie in waiting, how'd the Department of Propaganda let this one slip for so long?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RummyTheDummy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
19. Yeah, because we all know Sadam would let that shit happen
18 months before my ass. Could their lies be any more desperate. But in a way it's good news. It shows the issue is of concern for these douche bags.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
20. NBC Reported
That the explosives disappeared 18 months AGO not 18 months before the war.

Ths would mean that the Pentagon statements that they were intact in March of 2003 would be lies, and that the fact that they were sealed and tagged by the United Nations inspectors just a bit before that, and they were on the official inspectors inventory would be wrong as well
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
21. Sludge is such a dumbfuck. See this from msnbc.com / AP - 7:30pm
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:30 p.m. ET Oct. 25, 2004

But since the disappearance was reported in the media, he said he wanted the Security Council to have the letter dated, Oct. 10, that he received from Mohammed J. Abbas, a senior official at Iraq’s Ministry of Science and Technology, reporting the theft of the explosives.

The materials were lost through “the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security,” the letter said.

The letter informed the IAEA that since Sept. 4, 2003, looting at the Al-Qaqaa installation south of Baghdad had resulted in the loss of 214.67 tons of HMX, 155.68 tons of RDX and 6.39 tons of PETN explosives.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qanda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. So what is he talking about?
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zen Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
22. Pentagon says it was intact when we invaded in April 2003.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
59millionmorons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
23. Took about 2 seconds to debunk this story
But another Pentagon official who spoke to the Associated Press seems to disagree ...

At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said US-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hard Attack Donating Member (264 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
24. 18 Months ago - 540 Days = Iraq Attack began 585 days ago
The War was over in 21 days

The War started 585 days ago

18 months ago is 540 days

Sorry Matt and General Electric NBC trying to keep your puppet president up === you're wrong!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bush was AWOL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. He says atleast 18
So it could actually be more. NRO already has something up on thier blog about NBC blowing away the NYT story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qanda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Will they blow away Pentagon officials also?
At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said US-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hard Attack Donating Member (264 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Do you have a link to this by anychance
Any story out there you know of that is still available about this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qanda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Here...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hard Attack Donating Member (264 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. I guess they never let the NBC embed know about it
http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp

It's an NBC reported who was embedded with the 101st Airborne claiming the stuff was already gone in April of 2003 when the 101st took the area.

I guess the embed never got the word from the military. Apparently the Pentagon knows more about it than the embedded reporter. Who woulda thunk it?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
npincus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
29. i emailed this thread to Drudge
so he could see his headline debunked at DU and how everyone here thinks he's an asshole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
32. I don't have a link, but I saw on a Yahoo message board something negating
the story as told by drudge:

IAEA inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003 when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers, Fleming said. Inspectors visited the site again in March 2003, but didn't view the explosives because the seals were not broken, she said.

That means that when we invaded in March, the seals hadn't been broken.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jezebel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
33. This quote from NBC tonight has the stupid freepers ecstatic.....
Edited on Mon Oct-25-04 09:52 PM by jezebel
Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News pretty much dismantled the New York Times attack on behalf of Kerry today.


NBC News: Miklaszewski: “April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al Qakaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon. In a letter this month, the Iraqi interim government told the International Atomic Energy Agency the high explosives were lost to theft and looting due to lack of security. Critics claim there were simply not enough U.S. troops to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles, weapons now being used by insurgents and terrorists to wage a guerrilla war in Iraq.” (NBC’s “Nightly News,” 10/25/04)

But actually this makes Bush look worse. It took 3 weeks to get troops up their. This shows Bush didn't immediately make sure day one it was protected and in the 3 week time frame, it was looted. Somehow the freepers think because the troops hadn't gotten there yet, it exonerates Bush. The question is why weren't there adequate troops to secure it immediately?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. Like an NBC embed knows more about it than the Pentagon who
said that the stuff was there!

Fucking embedded reporters making shit up now!

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SamsSongSungWrong Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
37. Why can't you just ignore drudge?
He gave us the monicagate that took down the greatest president of all time and if we would have just ignored it then it would have been covered up by the pros the Big Dog had on his side. When are we going to learn to ignore and dismiss these right wing bogus attacks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
38. BULLSHIT


____________________________________________

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,955413,00.html
Nuclear watchdog fears terrorist dirty bomb after looting at al-Tuwaitha
Wednesday May 14, 2003

United Nations nuclear inspectors, barred from Iraq by Washington, are increasingly worried that the widespread looting and ransacking of Iraq's nuclear facilities may result in terrorists building a radioactive "dirty bomb". The inspectors' concerns are shared internationally and the British government has reportedly offered to raise the matter with Washington to try to get agreement on a return of the UN nuclear inspectors to Iraq.

The main worry revolves around the fate of at least 200 radioactive isotopes which were stored at the sprawling al-Tuwaitha nuclear complex, 15 miles south of Baghdad. It has seen widespread looting, and reports from Baghdad speak of locals making off with barrels of raw uranium and the isotopes which are meant for medical or industrial use.

"If this happened anywhere else there would be national outrage and it would be the highest priority," said a senior source at the UN nuclear watchdog, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency.

"The radioactive sources, some very potent ones, could get on to the black market and into the hands of terrorists planning dirty-bomb attacks," said Melissa Fleming, an IAEA spokeswoman.

<snip>Experts are muttering that the US, as the occupying power in Iraq, is now technically in breach of the non-proliferation treaty. There is a fear that the occupation, ostensibly to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, could result in more such weapons being created. <more>

____________________________________________

http://power.about.com/library/weekly/aa050503a.htm
Power/Energy
with Andre Titarenko
Iraq Nuclear Sites Looting
Updated May 11, 2003
OUR COMMENT

<snip> Chronologically the first reason to attack Iraq that was provided by the USA Administration was intelligence related to development of the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) by Saddam Hussein. Another reason was terrorism. There were changes of mind, but none of these reasons was ever dismissed completely. Being formerly involved with nuclear disarmament in another part of the world I had in my mind very clear picture of the USA Marines taking the control of whatever is left out there in the nuclear field after the bombing first hand, maybe even airlifted to do so. They certainly will be armed with detailed roadmaps, satellite pictures, floormaps and guidance, and will keep everyone away from known locations of fusion materials no matter what. Well…

First reports about possible looting of nuclear materials in Iraq dates back to April 11, when an anonymous source told ABC that IAEA seals on the drums with Uranium at Al-Tuwaitha facility near Baghdad, were broken. Drums there contained about 1.8 tons of Uranium (not weapon-grade, but probably fine to build “dirty bomb”). There was a lot of highly active materials other than Uranium there too. The initial looters could be local ( looking to get at least something for their families and homes), but they sure knew what is hidden behind the fence of Al-Tuwaitha. It was bombed not once (for the first time in 1981), and they must have had a lot of “word from mouth” about deadly radiation out there, etc. Only a very brave or a very stupid local guy will go looting there. Even if this happens, a sealed drum with Uranium is not as attractive a looting object as armchair, TV or freezer for an "average guy". If someone targets it, and breaks the seal, most likely he knows perfectly well what he is looking for, and who is the likely buyer for it. If by chance someone has broken the seals on the drums out of stupid curiosity, by now he has probably put pieces together and is looking for a buyer for stolen Uranium.

<snip>Al-Tuwaitha is not the only Iraq nuclear site. Some facilities are in and near Mosul, in the territory that was invaded by Kurds form Northern Iraq. Please bear in mind that the only operational Al-Qaeda training camp in Iraq existed on the territory controlled by Kurds in Northern Iraq, and Kurds were generally OK with neighborhood such as this. Kurds do cooperate with still sparce USA troops in the region, but so far there was no reports available about securing the al-Jazirah enrichment facility near Mosul.<more>


____________________________________________

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912073.asp?0cv=KB10
WMDs for the Taking?
While U.S. troops pushed on to Baghdad, Iraqis were looting radioactive materials from once protected sites

May 19 issue — From the very start, one of the top U.S. priorities in Iraq has been the search for weapons of mass destruction. Weren’t WMDs supposed to be what the war was about? Even so, no one has yet produced conclusive evidence that Iraq was maintaining a nuclear, biological or chemical (NBC) arsenal.

<snip>Some of the lapses are frightening. The well-known Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, about 12 miles south of Baghdad, had nearly two tons of partially enriched uranium, along with significant quantities of highly radioactive medical and industrial isotopes, when International Atomic Energy Agency officials made their last visit in January. 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. 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. Last week NEWSWEEK visited a total of eight sites on U.N. weapons-inspection lists. Two were guarded by U.S. troops. Armed looters were swarming through two others. Another was evidently destroyed many years ago. American forces had not yet searched the remaining three.<more>


____________________________________________

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&u=/nm/20030521/ts_nm/iraq_un_nuclear_usa_dc_3&printer=1
U.S.: IAEA Team Could Inspect Iraqi Nuke Site
Wed May 21, 3:02 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States proposed a joint investigation with the International Atomic Energy Agency of Iraq (news - web sites)'s Tuwaitha nuclear research center after reports of looting and a mission could go in a week or so, a U.S. official said Wednesday.

The Vienna-based IAEA earlier said Washington had offered a limited return of its inspectors to Iraq two months after they left on the eve of the U.S.-led war, but gave few details on the nature of the offer or the timing of a return.

"We are making arrangements with the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct a joint inspection of the safeguarded storage area near Tuwaitha. Details and timing are not set yet but we're looking to do this as soon as arrangements can be made," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.

Asked how quickly a team might go to Iraq, where the IAEA has said a nuclear contamination emergency may be developing because of the reports of looting at Tuwaitha, a senior U.S. official who asked not to be named said "maybe a week." <more>

___________________________________________

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2003/may/21/052108859.html
May 21, 2003 at 6:47:39 PDT
U.S.: Barrels Missing From Iraq Nuke Site

Some 20 percent of the known radioactive materials stored at Iraq's largest nuclear facility are unaccounted for, and U.S. nuclear experts have found radioactive patches on the ground where looters dumped out barrels believed to contain hazardous materials.

However, a senior commander said the great majority of the dangerous waste at the Tuwaitha nuclear complex was still secure and was not leaking radiation.

<snip>The dormant Tuwaitha plant, once considered the heart of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, has been repeatedly trashed by scavengers. It hasn't been operational for years. The Iraqis had been using it to store declared nuclear materials that were prohibited and sealed by the U.N. nuclear agency.

While the sprawling complex was considered one of the top sites where evidence of weapons of mass destruction might be found, it was left unguarded for days during the war. By the time weapons teams showed up to inspect the facility, so much had been destroyed that it was impossible to know what was missing.

<snip>The IAEA has been sharply critical of the U.S. handling of the site. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he would be willing to let members of the IAEA back into Iraq to assist them at nuclear sites. He couldn't say when or how the IAEA teams might work there, but said their previous knowledge and expertise would be welcome.

It was the first time U.S. officials have said the IAEA would be able to return to Iraq and was likely to be seen in the arms control community as an acknowledgment that the Americans need help. <more>


____________________________________________

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,960445,00.html
US dirty bomb fears after nuclear looting
Wednesday May 21, 2003

<snip>However, the apparent disappearance of radioactive material from Tuwaitha - the Iraqi nuclear research centre near Baghdad sealed by the UN after the last Gulf war - after looters ransacked its network of bunkers during and immediately after the recent war, has caused alarm at the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Earlier this week, the agency's director, Mohammed El Baradei, said he was "deeply concerned" by the reports from Tuwaitha.

According to some of those reports, uranium was simply emptied on to the ground from metal containers, which were then taken for domestic use, such as milking cows.

IAEA officials are concerned that the uranium could fall into the hands of terrorists who could use it to build a so-called dirty bomb, whereby conventional explosives are used to scatter radioactive nuclear material.

The Pentagon had opposed the return of UN inspectors, believing that they would interfere with its own investigation, but Mr Rumsfeld indicated yesterday that that opposition had been dropped.<more>


____________________________________________

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/topoff_reportcard030516.html
Ready for the Worst?
Sober Lessons Learned From Weeklong Terror Drills

W A S H I N G T O N, May 16— More than 1,000 people would have died of disease in Chicago and untold numbers would have been poisoned by radiation in Seattle had this week's national dress rehearsal for a terror attack been real — and some experts say that shows the United States isn't ready for the real thing.

"I think you can rest assured that this thing wasn't an absolutely flawless execution," Phil Anderson, a senior fellow and director of the Homeland Security Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told ABCNEWS.

<snip>In Seattle, hundreds of people would have been injured or sickened after a mock radiological or "dirty" bomb went off. Communications between emergency agencies were pushed to the limit. It took an hour and a half for four surrounding counties to find enough buses to transport residents around the disaster zone and to safety. Despite the delay, Ridge praised the local officials who role-played by setting up an alternative bus network so that residents could move around the community without being exposed to "radioactivity."

The government had trouble quickly putting in place a system that could reliably track the radioactive plume from the supposed dirty bomb.

"We learned that we can get resources in Seattle to the scene," said Ridge, who oversaw the exercise. "But I think we also learned we may need to get them there quicker, and act upon that information quicker.

<snip>"Really we have to get policy makers deciding how they're going to answer some of the big, tough questions," he said. "When do you call in the military, whether you call in the military at all? What is the situation with respect to quarantine? And what impact does that have on the civil liberties of the American people?" <more>

____________________________________________

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. - G. Bush, 10/7/02

____________________________________________

http://www.sierrasun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030718/OPINION/307180301
July 18, 2003
Bush's actions don't match the rhetoric
Guest Column by Kirk Caraway

<snip>Turn back the clock to the before the war. You "know" your enemy has 100-500 tons of chemical weapons, and you know where he is likely hiding them. Wouldn't you try to secure those sites as quickly as possible? After all, these chemical weapons posed a major threat to our advancing troops, and the big danger, they said, was if these fall into the hands of terrorists.

So why wasn't this done? Special Forces teams were flown into Iraq to secure the oil fields, but not the weapons. That speaks volumes about what the real reason for the war is.

And those weapons are still missing. Rumsfeld claims they are doing their best to search all those sites, but this is disconcerting. How many days have his 150,000 soldiers had to search the sites they already know about?

And what about the nukes? If Bush and his people really thought that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program, why did the military wait for more than a week after taking over the region to even visit the country's main nuclear research facilities at Tuwaitha?

Why did they wait even longer to visit the neighboring Baghdad Nuclear Research Facility? Both sites were heavily looted, so if there were plans for a nuclear bomb or even some weapons-grade material, it would be long gone by now.<more>

____________________________________________

http://www.counterpunch.org/schwarz07172003.html
July 17, 2003
Bush's Pre-emptive Strike Doctrine
The Bane of Non-Proliferation Watchdogs
By MARTIN SCHWARZ

<snip>Bush's use of the specter of nuclear threat to legitimate his intimidation policy can also been seen as just another excuse if reports from occupied post-war Iraq are taken into account. When the reports about massive looting in Iraq's biggest nuclear facility Al-Tuwaitha emerged after the war, the U.S. administration rejected the IAEA's request to send inspectors to that facility for more than a month. El-Baradei didn't even get an answer to his letters to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. Meanwhile, strange things must have happened in Al-Tuwaitha: The IAEA in Vienna received several phone calls from U.S. soldiers based at the facility to secure it, who didn't know what to do with nuclear material they had found.<more>

____________________________________________

http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20030716_192.html
U.N. in Dark About Looted Iraq Dirty Bomb Material
July 16
By Louis Charbonneau

VIENNA (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog said Wednesday it had accounted for most of the low-grade uranium lost during looting at Iraq's main nuclear facility, but had no information about more dangerous radioactive material.

<snip>But an IAEA spokeswoman said the agency had not been permitted by U.S. occupation authorities to check the status of Tuwaitha's stocks of highly-radioactive cesium-137, cobalt-160 and other materials which could be used in dirty bombs.

"There were around 400 of these radioactive sources stored at Tuwaitha," IAEA's Melissa Fleming said.

Witnesses have said that villagers near Tuwaitha, especially children, have shown symptoms of radiation sickness.

"Any case of radiation sickness would probably be from these highly-radioactive sources, not from the low-grade natural uranium at Location C," Fleming said.<more>

____________________________________________

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/6068775.htm
Looting of Iraqi nuclear facility indicts U.S. goals
If we feared the loss of radioactive materials, why not guard them?
TRUDY RUBIN
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Posted on Thu, Jun. 12, 2003

TUWAITHA, Iraq - On a dusty road, just outside of Baghdad, lies one of the great mysteries of the Iraq war.

<snip>The administration knew full well what was stored at Tuwaitha. So how is it possible that the U.S. military failed to secure the nuclear facility until weeks after the war started? This left looters free to ransack the barrels, dump their contents, and sell them to villagers for storage.

How is it possible that, according to Iraqi nuclear scientists, looters are still stealing radioactive isotopes?

The Tuwaitha story makes a mockery of the administration's vaunted concern with weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. military hastened to secure the Ministry of Oil in Baghdad from looters. But Iraq's main nuclear facility was apparently not important enough to get similar protection.

<snip>And why, in facilities other than Location C, is the looting apparently continuing?

Hisham Abdel Malik, a Iraqi nuclear scientist who lives near Tuwaitha and has been inside the complex, told me that in buildings "where there are radioactive isotopes, there is looting every day." He says the isotopes, which are in bright silver containers, "are sold in the black market or kept in homes." According to IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming, such radioactive sources can kill on contact or pollute whole neighborhoods.

How could an administration that had hyped the danger of Saddam handing off nuclear materials to terrorists let Tuwaitha be looted? Maybe the hype was just hype ... or maybe the Pentagon didn't send enough troops to Iraq to do the job right.

Either answer is damning.<more>

_____________________________________________

http://www.sierrasun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030718/OPINION/307180301
July 18, 2003
Bush's actions don't match the rhetoric
Guest Column by Kirk Caraway

<snip>Turn back the clock to the before the war. You "know" your enemy has 100-500 tons of chemical weapons, and you know where he is likely hiding them. Wouldn't you try to secure those sites as quickly as possible? After all, these chemical weapons posed a major threat to our advancing troops, and the big danger, they said, was if these fall into the hands of terrorists.

So why wasn't this done? Special Forces teams were flown into Iraq to secure the oil fields, but not the weapons. That speaks volumes about what the real reason for the war is.

And those weapons are still missing. Rumsfeld claims they are doing their best to search all those sites, but this is disconcerting. How many days have his 150,000 soldiers had to search the sites they already know about?

And what about the nukes? If Bush and his people really thought that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program, why did the military wait for more than a week after taking over the region to even visit the country's main nuclear research facilities at Tuwaitha?

Why did they wait even longer to visit the neighboring Baghdad Nuclear Research Facility? Both sites were heavily looted, so if there were plans for a nuclear bomb or even some weapons-grade material, it would be long gone by now.<more>

_____________________________________________

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,1056483,00.html
Saddam's nuclear arsenal? A scattering of yellow powder
Villagers sell deadly uranium to the US army at $3 a barrel
Patrick Graham in Al Mansia
Sunday October 5, 2003
The Observer

Dhia Ali makes a throwing motion as he tells how he dumped out the blue barrels of powder. The nine-year-old and his brother, Hussein, weren't looking for weapons of mass destruction when they went into the low brown buildings, known to UN weapons inspectors as Location C, near his home last April. They just wanted the blue barrels.

The yellow cake powder they poured out and breathed into their lungs - a form of natural uranium - was part of the nuclear programme which, the Iraq Survey Group's recent report claims, somewhat vaguely, was being restarted before the last war. The report won't do much for Dhia or Hussein - they haven't even been examined by a doctor yet.

<snip>The report's claim that Iraq was revamping its nuclear programme in such a way that it could constitute any serious threat was described as 'ridiculous' by the scientist. By 1991, when the he left the programme, Iraq had succeeded in producing no more than one kilogram of enriched uranium - 6 to 14 kgs short of a bomb. By 1997, the programme had been exposed and most of its capabilities destroyed. <more>

_____________________________________________




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadMatt22 Donating Member (58 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
39. 18 months ago was not "before troops arrived"
Seriously, wtf?
It's the math, stupid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jezebel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. They are such asses. It WAS before troops arrived at the site, not before
we invaded. It was weeks later, which proves the point that we did not IMMEDIATELY secure the site like we should have. We gave time and ALLOWED it to be looted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
40. If they didn't secure it, of course by DEFINITION they were gone "before
troops arrived." They are just trying to confuse things/muddy the waters so as to defuse the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadMatt22 Donating Member (58 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. Oh so thats the spin
I'm seeing their angle now
dastardly i say
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #40
48. No shit. Duh, we arrived to find explosives gone, which they then
offer as evidence for explosives being gone. Talk about circular logic!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dickie Flatt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
43. He admits he's a whore
From his report: A top Bush official e-mailed DRUDGE late Monday: "Let me get this straight, are Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards now saying we did not go into Iraq soon enough? We should have invaded and liberated Iraq sooner?"

Really? Really Matt? A top Bush official personally emailed you? With a talking point? Which you put on your website?

Let me get this straight, is Mr. Drudge now admitting that he bases his reporting around RNC talking points? We should listen to him why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
F.Gordon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
45. Fuck Matt Sewer Sludge....
I wouldn't want to be in Iraq right now. This is the IAEA report filed 10/1/2004. While it is rather vague, it scares me a bit to think that someone may have the makings for the Mother of All Dirty Bombs...

As a result of its ongoing review of satellite imagery acquired on a regular basis, and follow up investigations, the IAEA continues to be concerned about the widespread and apparently systematic dismantlement that has taken place at sites previously relevant to Iraq’snuclear programme and sites previously subject to ongoing monitoring and verification by the IAEA. The imagery shows in many instances the dismantlement of entire buildings that housed high precision equipment (such as flow forming, milling and turning machines; electron beam welders; coordinate measurement machines) formerly monitored and tagged with IAEA seals, as well as the removal of equipment and materials (such as high strength aluminium) from open storage areas.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/OctoberReport.pdf

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but something bothered the IAEA enough to notify the UN Security Council.
:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hard Attack Donating Member (264 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. Matt is misleading his viewers already
Matt makes it seem 'all 380 tons' where not there.

I mean, if the simple minds enjoy reading stuff like this, well, they are in a frenzy now.

''NBCNEWS: HUGE CACHE OF EXPLOSIVES VANISHED FROM SITE IN IRAQ -- AT LEAST 18 MONTHS AGO -- BEFORE TROOPS ARRIVED''

This is a big scoop == a big scoop of Dog Shit in an Ed Koch Pooper Scooper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qanda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
46. So this is his own made up report
That he's trying to use to muddy the waters on an entire story, which has been sourced and verified by a number of credible sources, including the Pentagon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattNC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
49. OUCH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. Wait!!! The fonts are all wrong!! and the superscripts are faked
and this was obviously done on a computer, and we all know that computers with this font weren't being sold in, oh, 2002!!!

Douchebagfreepersfortruth.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hard Attack Donating Member (264 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
50. Not for nothing, we had this place under satellite survelliance
This place along will a bunch of other places were under constant satellite surelliance.

Lies, Lies Lies ===
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 06:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC