 |
|
« Upsetting Conventional Wisdom, Part Two | Main | Quickah Quick Links - Boston Edition » October 27, 2004
Explosives: A Shocking New Russian Wrinkle
(Flashback - That Russian Convoy) Posted by Bill Where are the IAEA's missing explosives, along with other elements of Saddam's WMD program? It seems that the Russians might know: Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned. John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad. This gels with the previous assessment of a suspicious Russian presence in Iraq before and during the war, along with dubious Russian denials of any previous violation of UN sanctions: March 24, 2003 Tensions increase between the United States and Russia. The United States charged the Russians of supposed deliveries of Russian weapons in Iraq. The spokesman of the American President, Ari Fleischer, rejected denials of Moscow and assured that Washington has "evidence" of these deliveries, which could give the Iraqis invaluable assets against the Anglo-American forces. Devices listed are binoculars for night vision, GPS units, and anti-tank missiles. Ari Fleischer said the American government asked the Russians to immediately put an end to its assistance. It reminded them that the deliveries of this type of materials and equipment in Iraq were the subject of sanctions by the United Nations. The Russian government and the companies mentioned as having delivered armaments to Iraq have rejected these allegations on Monday, describing them as "inventions" and reaffirming that Moscow strictly respected the embargo imposed by UN in Baghdad. Russian president Vladimir Putin rejected the American charges himself during a telephone conversation with George W. Bush, the Presidential press secretary indicated Tuesday, quoted by the Interfax agency. Also recall that during the war, a column of Russian diplomats was shot at by coalition forces as it moved out of Baghdad towards the Syrian border. At the time it was described in the Western media as a case of mistaken crossfire. The straight version from the BBC: 7 April, 2003 A convoy of Russian diplomatic cars shot at while leaving Baghdad was caught in crossfire between US and Iraqi forces, a Russian TV journalist travelling with the convoy has said. In contrast, this translation of an analysis by a group of Russian journalists and military experts paints a slightly different picture: War in Iraq - US troops attack Russian diplomats Sources claim that the embassy ceased its activities in many respects because of the danger of an air strike on the embassy. The American command was utterly irritated by the presence of the Russian embassy in Baghdad and believed that some technical intelligence equipment was deployed there that provided the Iraqis with information. Moreover, some officers in the coalition HQ in Qatar openly claimed that it was on the territory of the Russian embassy that the “jammers” hampering the high-precision weapons around Baghdad were operated. Yesterday morning the Secretary of State Colin Powell demanded of immediate evacuation of the embassy from the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Igor Ivanov. Yesterday evening the Russian minister informed the Americans that on the 6th of April the embassy column would be leaving Baghdad heading for the Syrian border. This gave rise to dissatisfaction among the State Department officials who suggested that the column should move to Jordan. The coalition special operations HQ were sure that the embassy column would contain secret devices taken from military equipment captured by Iraqis. In this connection one cannot shut out the possibility of “revenge”from the coalition command. Moreover, experts claim that the purpose of this armed assault could be to damage a few cars where the Russians would have to leave some of the salvage. This is also indicated by the fact that neither the ambassador himself nor journalists in the column were among the injured. In this case we can expect that this action was committed by coalition special forces and the column was shot using Russian-made weapons to conceal the origin of the attackers to blame the Iraqis afterwards. According to the most recent data the column got ambushed almost 30 km to the west from the city on the territory occupied by the coalition, but moving fast it escaped from fire and made a few more kilometers where it was blocked by military jeeps. On attempting to establish contact with their crews it received fire again, then the jeeps vanished. I'm speculating here, but it's certain that the US military was aware of some form of Russian assistance to the Iraqis prior to and during the war, and it's possible that Coalition Special Forces may have actually taken intentional military action against the Russians in an attempt to disable portions of a "diplomatic" convoy that moved towards the Syrian border. If the attack was purposeful, it may have taken place under the assumption that the Russians were transporting weapons, WMD components and/or other evidence that detailed any illegal pre-war relationship between Russia and Iraq. Once again, please note that the previous paragraph is only my speculation. That being said, the evidence is mounting that Russia may have been responsible for helping the Iraqis move material in an attempt to cover up evidence of an illegal business relationship that violated UN sanctions, perhaps specifically relating to direct assistance in regenerating or hiding WMD programs. In addition, given Russia's status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council that vehemently opposed the war, the political implications loom very large indeed. The purposeful "ambush" or accidental "crossfire" that I describe above lends credence to today's claim by Deputy Undersecretary Shaw. Russian involvement may or may not specifically account for the explosives described in the NY Times' accusatory anti-Bush piece, but those are almost besides the point: Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. Additional sourcing and detail are required, but this could be big, folks. More as it develops. UPDATE: Generation Why opines: This story debunks TWO of John Kerry's campaign pillars. First, it destroys any notion that Russia would've been a willing ally in the coalition to disarm Saddam Hussein. They were cooperating with him in the months leading up to the invasion. The article says "Russia was Iraq's largest foreign supplier of weaponry" and it appears they were helping Saddam hide those weapons to cover their own illegal dealings with the ousted dictator. I agree completely. Second, it casts even more doubt on the attempted coordinated attack on the Bush administration by the New York Times, cBS and the Kerry Campaign. I wouldn't state that the Kerry Campaign directly coordinated with the NY Times, but this certainly casts aspersions on the latest accusations about the Bush Administration's failure to secure the explosives. UPDATE: Michelle Malkin points out elements that could undermine the source: Hmmm. This will be used to undermine Shaw's credibility (hat tip: Slantpoint). And, for what it's worth, when asked about Shaw's remarks, Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita told the Financial Times: "I am unaware of any particular information on that point." The DOD clarified Shaw's legal status here, so his credibility remains intact. UPDATE: Wizbang has an important update by FOX News: Brett Baier of Fox News is on a roll. First, he is reporting that the Department of Defense has satellite imagery from BEFORE the war showing large trucks removing things from Al Qaa Qa. Some have suggested they may release the images. Second he has gotten his hands on the Jan 2004 "Action Report" from the IAEA. It contradicts what Mohamad Albardi told the UN Security Council. Read the rest of his link-rich post. In addition, ABC reports: Descrepancy Found in Explosives Amounts Documents Show Iraqis may be Overstating Amount of Missing Material Three tons of RDX, not 141. Three. I'm unsure about the 194.7 tons of HMX, though it looks as though trucks already carted them off. (Error corrected --Ed) I think that we can put almost put a fork in the NY Times' Al Qaa Qa explosives angle. As the Llamas say: The whole CBS/Kerry story about the missing explosives at Al Qaqaa is completely disintegrating like an evil mummy zombie in the sun. UPDATE: A local news crew has video of explosives in the Al Qaa Qa bunker after the war: A 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew in Iraq shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein was in the area where tons of explosives disappeared, and may have videotaped some of those weapons. During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS news crew bunker after bunker of material labelled "explosives." Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get into the bunkers and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords. Key line: On Wednesday, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS e-mailed still images of the footage taken at the site to experts in Washington to see if the items captured on tape are the same kind of high explosives that went missing in Al Qaqaa. Those experts could not make that determination. The footage is now in the hands of security experts to see if it is indeed the explosives in question. How much? The right kind? We'll see. Posted by Bill at October 27, 2004 10:59 PM | TrackBack (23) CommentsCould be big... It is already HUGE..... Kerry is caught with his pants down big time... 1) Game Kerry is now Toast..... Happy October Posted by: Sonar5 at October 28, 2004 12:25 AM
1) NY TIMES themselves run a similar story. Source #1 October 29, 2003 Head of spy agency points to signs of heavy travel before U.S. invasion WASHINGTON - The director of a top American spy agency said Tuesday that he believed that material from Iraq's illicit weapons program was transported into Syria and perhaps other countries as part of an effort by Iraqis to disperse and destroy evidence immediately before the recent war. The official, James Clapper Jr., a retired air force lieutenant general, said satellite images showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria just before the American invasion in March had led him to believe "unquestionably" that illicit weapons material was moved outside Iraq. 2) CBS runs similar story Source #2 Russian Convoy Caught In Crossfire MOSCOW, April 7, 2003 3) washingtom Times runs similar Story, source #3
Yeehah...... way to Go Bill gertz, game...Set....match..... Not even the slimeball progressive liberals can spin this one.... Too much evidence.... 2 out of 3 sources (2 of them liberal biased) concur... Russians moved the stuff.... Regards, Posted by: Sonar5 at October 28, 2004 12:27 AM I'm sorry, this is the match of the game: ABC NEWS: http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1 Discrepancy Found in Explosives Amounts Documents Show Iraqis May Be Overstating Amount of Missing Material 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 3 tons of RDX was 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 start of the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003. ... 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. Posted by: Nighthaven at October 28, 2004 12:32 AM ABCNews reports more errors in amounts of explosives. 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 3 tons of RDX was 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 start of the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003. Posted by: DeWaun at October 28, 2004 12:38 AM When a story is as powerful as this, I sometimes try to look at it from the other side (Liberal, I mean). There is I think a small problem with the story, it's source. The Honorable John A. Shaw may be in a position to know this information, but it seems problematic. His job description reads: "In this newly created position, which is part of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L), he is responsible for reforming and improving the export control process so as to measurably improve the security of critical American technologies and manufacturing abilities. As important, he is responsible for facilitating strategically important transfers to our closest allies while protecting American technological superiority, and will provide an essential coordinating and balancing function between AT&L, the Office of the Under Secretary for Policy, and the three Services. Mr. Shaw will have a lead role both in the interagency process and in coordinating with industry and Congress on export control issues." His job was created just a month after 9/11/2001, and deals with export control to our allies, not unfortunately a job in Military Intelligence, or Intelligence coordinating. On the other hand, he has street cred "overseeing the development, organization and management of two new industrial cities, Jubail and Yanbu, in Saudi Arabia." So he knows that part of the world, and could have been tasked with overseeing the movement of material from any source in that region. But the biggest problem I see is this man has been part of the White House Staffs of Nixon, Ford, and Reagen. Since the libs have no inside source to go after this story any other way, they will probably attack the source. Of course, they are well aware that there are going to be problems doing that as well, since it will incredibly complicate an already complicated story, and time is short. Also, attacking people about whose job you are somewhat unsure is also risky, since it could turn around and blow the final lid off of your campaign. It's just a head's up to a possible problem that could loom. It's probably meaningless, but I think forewarned is forearmed. Posted by: Thad O at October 28, 2004 12:50 AM John Kerry's response to his flagrant lying about these munitions: Posted by: pajama_jihad at October 28, 2004 12:57 AM The case against Shaw gets worse, as reported at the bottom of Michelle Malkin's story on same. Posted by: Thad O at October 28, 2004 12:58 AM Just a thought: I do not recall where the explosives originated if the question was ever addressed in the first place. Who made the stuff. The Russians maybe? Too late to sort though the google hits to see if the manufacturer is listed somewhere. Maybe moving the stuff to Syria was the Russians way of getting the evidence of UN sanctions violations out before the US went in. If so, we probably knew and let them get it out rather than have that as another sideshow as the invasion pressure mounted. Couldn't have gotten it out through Kurdistan to the north at that point in time. Posted by: Just Passing Through at October 28, 2004 01:00 AM Whoever took the "stuff" the administration was too incompetent to safeguard it. Posted by: WOOF at October 28, 2004 01:00 AM Hmm. Guess the cold war never quite ended, did it? Posted by: Deviant Logic at October 28, 2004 01:03 AM The good news WOOF is that you can't read, so will probably pull the wrong lever, or mark the wrong 'X' or whatever when you step into the voting booth. Whatever you believe about this latest break, the explosives, which might amount to as little as 3 tons were gone before we got there. Posted by: Thad O at October 28, 2004 01:04 AM - Well, well, well..... Soooooooooo the Ruski's dood it... - Any bets on how fast Kerry will get Amnesia on this one after two days of bloviating.... - CBS and the NY Times are toeing the line on "laughing stock" of 2004 worst journalism awards.... Posted by: Hunter at October 28, 2004 01:12 AM Woof just posted the probable talking point for Kerry tomorrow, that I alluded to in another comment section... That of The dems stating: "Bush should have moved in earlier to secure the weapons that are all of sudden just as important as WMD is..." Funny Stuff.... hey, Woof, what if they were moved before we got there... Still Bush's fault huh.... Did you know Bush is to blame for the Hurricanes in Florida too? Man I can't wait until next Wednesday.... Regards, Posted by: Sonar5 at October 28, 2004 01:14 AM Hey woof, maybe we should have just shot all the looters, huh... I wonder what the UN Human Rights Commission would have said about that... Anyway, kerry is TOAST on this issue, and he can't hide form this, although the LSM will deflect all they can... I picture kerry tomorrow morning whining in his Ovaltine... Whaaa, I don't have story to run today, and Joe Lockhart comes up from behind, and says, "well we do have the Nightline story ready to go..." Too Funny... His wentire campaign is relying on the latest news cycle created just for is own use... Priceless.... Posted by: Sonar5 at October 28, 2004 01:19 AM A time line going back to 1991 needs to made up. The evidence of wmd needs to start there. The weapons that are now being talked about, where did they come from and who? Who manufactured them? Another thing, the troops moving through did not know how 'sensitive this cache was, no one had advised them. And they were already ordered to a certain goal, and it wasn't searching, seizing and guarding that cache. The fact that seals were only put on the doors is ridiculous. The Inspectors looked at the facilities themselves and noted they were not secure and could not be made secure. So somehow this is Bush's fault? Gimme a break! What is happening here is just what has been expected by a lot of folks. The wmd that has been denied over and over since the invasion are now being recognized. But let's forget all the screaming now being done by the opposition is in fact the cancelation of the screaming they were doing up until just the last few days. There will lots of humble pie to share. And by the way, seals are not locks in case some of you don't know the difference. Posted by: mshyde at October 28, 2004 01:19 AM - So let me get this straight Sonar5....Now the Kerry Klowns are saying Bush didn't go into Iraq FAST enough????... you have to be kidding... - Bill....I just have to ask....Are Kerry's advisors really this bad at stratedgy??? Posted by: Hunter at October 28, 2004 01:20 AM No Hunter, not yet, but that will be the Gist of it, IMHO... Watch them spin it away... They will keep crying we didn't stop this form happening, even if it was all removed prior to us going in. Don't you see, It's all Bush's fault... Nothing else matters to them, they must elect the Traitor Kerry, and they will do anything to effect that. Tomorrow will expose the Hypocritical dem libe prgressives for what they are, lying HYPOCRITES. Posted by: Sonar5 at October 28, 2004 01:23 AM kerry's advisors like the all time political loser Bob Shrumm are grasoping at straws... I think they will run with the Nightline Story myself. That may be the deflection story dejour... Posted by: Sonar5 at October 28, 2004 01:24 AM - Two related items.... - Bremmer went on FOX this evening with Hume....Said he was within 20 miles of the weapons dump for that entire 5 month period starting in april...traffic on the road was almost deserted except for coalition supply, armament, and troop movemnets. He was up and down there many times. Thinks its next to impossible that anyone could have gotten in and out with the number of large trucks they would have needed.... - Whizbang has a piece saying that CBS blames the bloggers for forcing them to release earlier than they wanted to... Posted by: Hunter at October 28, 2004 01:38 AM The grand conspiracy continues! "BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 27 - Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday. The Iraqis described an orgy of theft so extensive that enterprising residents rented their trucks to looters. But some looting was clearly indiscriminate, with people grabbing anything they could find and later heaving unwanted items off the trucks. Two witnesses were employees of Al Qaqaa - one a chemical engineer and the other a mechanic - and the third was a former employee, a chemist, who had come back to retrieve his records, determined to keep them out of American hands. The mechanic, Ahmed Saleh Mezher, said employees asked the Americans to protect the site but were told this was not the soldiers' responsibility." Posted by: Mantis at October 28, 2004 01:42 AM How dare that Iraqi mechanic denigrate our troops that way? Posted by: Mantis at October 28, 2004 01:43 AM Mantis - I'd be careful - you could make an ass of yourself. From that same story: The accounts do not directly address the question of when 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives vanished from the site sometime after early March, the last time international inspectors checked the seals on the bunkers where the material was stored. It is possible that Iraqi forces removed some explosives before the invasion. And from ABC: Descrepancy Found in Explosives Amounts Documents Show Iraqis may be Overstating Amount of Missing Material But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over 3 tons of RDX was stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported. 3 TONS. 3. In addition: The Department of Defense has satellite imagery from BEFORE the war showing large trucks removing things from Al Qaa Qa. Some have suggested they may release the images. Oh yeah, and they've found a discrepancy in the IAEA report. Seriously Mantis - I'd shut up about this and especially stop being smug about anything - this story is imploding.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 28, 2004 01:49 AM Ummm sure mantis, Ok, we'll believe them instead of the troops that were actually there, huh. Ok.... So your contention is that Employees stuck around at an Iraqi Ammo Dump with Our military moving in, is that your conetntion, or perhaps there is another explanationas to why these employees allegedly stuck around to witness this... Funny Stuff.... Oh your article aslo says this which you LEFT OUT...: "The accounts do not directly address the question of when 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives vanished from the site sometime after early March, the last time international inspectors checked the seals on the bunkers where the material was stored. It is possible that Iraqi forces removed some explosives before the invasion." Hmmmm..... I wonder what those Russian Convoys were carrying, hmmmm..... Interesting how the NY Times can find Iraqi witnesses, how about asking the Russians instead, since the NY Times alluded to this way back in OCTOBER of 2003.... SO was the NY Times wrong then, or are they wrong now??? hmmmm..... Posted by: Sonar5 at October 28, 2004 01:50 AM Bill you and I must have been typing at the same time again... Posted by: Sonar5 at October 28, 2004 01:51 AM Oh Yeah, I forgot to add this.. Game... Posted by: Sonar5 at October 28, 2004 01:51 AM am bloging from iraq, some hits from here would make my day :) http://Iraqi4ever.blogspot.com P.S: f*** those russians :P Posted by: Ferid at October 28, 2004 01:57 AM Oh yeah, one more thing, and I'm off to bed... Let me know if that story appears on Page 10 or higher in Thursday's edition edition of the NY Times.... Regards, Posted by: Sonar5 at October 28, 2004 01:59 AM Actually, Bill, I don't think I'm being particularly smug because I have no stake in this whatsoever, and have been finding the entire thing quite humorous. Just thought I'd be funny and add some more NYTimes to the mix since you guys obviously think they are colluding with cbs and Kerry and wouldn't possibly buy anything they have to say anyway. I've already said this is all a mess and I am waiting to see how this all turns out. You two are pretty touchy tonight. Just a joke, all in good fun. Posted by: Mantis at October 28, 2004 02:00 AM Just a joke, all in good fun. K, just thought you might be morphing into geek or postit for a sec. Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 28, 2004 02:05 AM - Besides Mantis.... widespread looting is part and parcel of any war like situation.... - I was working in an Engineering lab two blocks from the corner of 105th in Cleveland in 64' durring the race riots...We kept going into work until the day they started shooting out the lab windows... One of the Black engineers made a big sign...."Don't shoot...We'er Blood!" so we could get the hell out of there... Three guys were holding up a bank on the corner when the National gaurd jeeps came in and the troops deployed... the three guys came running out of the bank...saw the troops and almost shit themselves...just dropped everything and gave up.... - You don't know what fun is till you've experienced all out anarchy... Posted by: Hunter at October 28, 2004 02:06 AM No, the more time I spend here the less I think like them. I read that whole story and it's ridiculous. The more I think about this the more I agree that the NYTimes and CBS really are actively trying to get Kerry elected. I'm not willing to extend that to the rest of the MSM, I still think they're just lazy, but those two seem hellbent on getting Bush out of office. Posted by: Mantis at October 28, 2004 02:08 AM How many F-bombs do you think Kerry has let loose tonight? I'm sure he's still going. Check and see how tired he looks tomorrow. I can't wait to see the next Joe Lockhart email. Good Times!!! Posted by: Bryan at October 28, 2004 02:09 AM Wait mantis, Did you just say kerry wouldn't buy anything the NY Times had to say. Please tell me you didn't mean that. He abandoned his whole platform for 2 days to do nothing but talk about this story, and even made a campaign ad about it. He believes everything the NY Times says, I think, unless you believe the nutjobs that think Joe Lockhart was sent in to derail his campaign so Hillary can run in 2008. Now Joe wouldn't do that would he???? Anyway, TT you folks in the AM. Later... Regards, Posted by: Sonar5 at October 28, 2004 02:11 AM Bill, Posted by: bryan at October 28, 2004 02:12 AM Mr Shaw may have been chosen as the reason to release this information for a reason. First what Shaw has said is probably what really happened. Second in order for Kerry and his allies in the press to knock the story out they have to either come back with stronger counter evidence or smear Shaw. Their propensity has always been to the latter. If what Shaw says is true and can be proven with hard evidence smearing him will cause the Kerry campaign's credibility to crumble on this issue and make themselves look like lying jerks who would destroy someone personally and professionally for no other reason than to get elected. Remember Kerry opened this can of worms and has screeched like a moonbat every chance he had in order to hammer Bush with this story. But now that what really may have occurred at al Qaqaa is coming to light the Kerry campaign is running out of time to counter. My guess is the Kerry campaign will go for Shaw's throat on Thursday and Friday. By Saturday most of the information and opinion, both pro and con of both campaigns, concerning what happened at al Qaqaa will be out. Then on Sunday the Pentagon will release most of the evidence supporting Shaw including the satellite intel. On Monday John Kerry will be in Boston with a gallon of Ben and Jerry's ice cream sniffling while Teresa berates him as the metrosexual he is. Kerry mijudged this and the military hierarchy hates his guts as much as Bill Clinton's. Dumb move. Posted by: Harry in Atlanta at October 28, 2004 02:19 AM Ok, I found the quotes from the debate on the 8th. Kerry said: 1) 2) ******** This lends credence of a plan IMHO. maybe this is why kerry was so quick. I wonder if kerry talked them into running the story.. Veeewwwy Interesting..... Dot...connect....here.....Dot.... These are certainly worthy questions for kerry to be asked, now isn't it.... Regards, Posted by: Sonar5 at October 28, 2004 02:20 AM Check out this op-ed in Washington Times - appears to be March 20, 2003 by ex Russian Spy Ex-Spy Fingers Russians on WMD very interesting in that he mentions the Russian Yevgeny Primakov - Russian Minister of Foriegn Affairs was in Baghdad to meet with Saddam days before the war...and that this guy RAN saddams weapons program in the 1970's and this cat in my google search of his biography has him speaking fluent arabic and hates Isreal but the op/ed deals with the Russians showing the Iraqi's how to make there programs "disappear" Posted by: peapies at October 28, 2004 02:22 AM Oh Yeah, kerry is flip flopping again... 1st it's 850,000 Tons, now 380 Tons... Now how mant pickups does it take to hold 850,000 Tons of Ammo anyway... Buehler...buehler.... Posted by: Sonar5 at October 28, 2004 02:22 AM i meant "their" sorry Posted by: peapies at October 28, 2004 02:23 AM I was watching Chris Mathews when he asked/told a lefty how he thinks Bush wasn't reacting to Kerry's accusations because this story about missing ammo "must have some truth to it". Good Times!!!! Posted by: Bryan at October 28, 2004 02:26 AM Interesting, no mention of this in any other debate.... Just checked. Searched Ammo and dump... Pssst... Iksnay on the umpday erryka.. We're CBS news, let's run that election Eve.... Posted by: Sonar5 at October 28, 2004 02:27 AM - Ok...This one is already history...real question is what happens next... This election cycle is getting to be like Christmas every day with a new present to wake up to each morning..... Posted by: Hunter at October 28, 2004 02:28 AM If I were the editor of the NTY, the headline would read. "THAT DUMP" Posted by: Bryan at October 28, 2004 02:29 AM Fox will certainly run with the Russian Moving Company story, and I'm think its soo big the the rest of the MSM will have to give it time starting tomorrow.. Scarborough Country MSNBC ended the night with it. Posted by: Bryan at October 28, 2004 02:33 AM OT--- Posted by: Bryan at October 28, 2004 02:35 AM If you haven't seen it. static.vidvote.com/movies/bushuncensored.mov Posted by: Bryan at October 28, 2004 02:40 AM - Loved the Email the Bush people fired off to Drudge right after they saw the Kerry Klowns first reaction to the “dump” story...."So what are you saying....The Kerry people are claiming now we didn’t go into Iraq fast enough????...this is like playing poker with a bunch of village idiots”.... - Rove must be laughing so hard the past two weeks he’s in danger of getting a hernia..... Posted by: Hunter at October 28, 2004 02:41 AM he did it during a sound check and the Texans for TRUTH LIED, and stated it was what he thought about democracy. Here is the LIARS Quote.... "This video shows what George Bush thinks of democracy. He was cuaght on video while governor of Texas." Typical progressive Liberals..... I wonder how many riots they will start next week when kerrry loses... Heck they tried to run over Katherine Harris in Florida... BTW - I thought the video was very funny.... Posted by: Sonar5 at October 28, 2004 02:43 AM Oh yeah, cuaght was their mispelling not mine. From: Posted by: Sonar5 at October 28, 2004 02:44 AM Bush in a Landslide!!!!!! Posted by: Bryan at October 28, 2004 02:45 AM If I'm Rove I don't want anything else coming out. I think I might have someone I don't know call the swifties and ask them to lay low.. Would I be wrong or is it time to pile on? Posted by: Bryan at October 28, 2004 02:47 AM Pile it on, that is what the progressive liberals are doing... Posted by: Sonar5 at October 28, 2004 02:48 AM But their strategy is a pile of crap, IMHO.... Unless of course you believe Lockhart is doing this so kerry loses to set up clinton for '08.
Posted by: Sonar5 at October 28, 2004 02:50 AM Bobby Fisher just called the White House to congratulate Rove. Posted by: Bryan at October 28, 2004 02:50 AM I will agree, i think Lockhart is throwing it. If you saw after debate 2 (i think), he came out for spin interviews looking like a drunken homeless person. He was like, look at me I'm a smelly mess, vote for Kerry. Posted by: Bryan at October 28, 2004 02:56 AM Bill---just to clarify. The ABC News report says that there was a significant error in the RDX number, not the HMX number. So the difference is not 380 vs. 3, it's more like 380 vs. 180. Still, there is more in the ABC report: apparently the inspectors noted that it would be rather easy for the Iraqis to bypass IAEA seals and retrieve the explosives by removing ventilation ducts on the sides of the buildings. Posted by: mcg at October 28, 2004 03:40 AM I'm just trying to make sure I understand this -- You now think that while the US had Iraq under massive surveillance, a large Russian convoy came in to one of the most watched sites in the country, loaded that convoy up with tons of high explosives, trucked it all the way from the outskirts of Baghdad across the border of Syria, and nobody even noticed it happening. (Except that the 380 tons of explosives didn't really exist, so this didn't actually happen.) And this is according to a cell phone scammer who the Pentagon is distancing themselves from, and who offers no evidence. Meanwhile, the guys who actually looted the place say that they had no trouble spending weeks on end dismantling everything and trucking it off. And even if they did truck off the explosives, it's no big deal because a million tons of other explosives were also trucked off by looters. Now do I have that about right? Is that really your story today? Yeah, you run with this one. I think you've finally got a winner this time. Posted by: zota at October 28, 2004 04:44 AM Don't forget the explosives that never existed that were trucked off to Syria by the Russians could have been used in making nuclear weapons and are therefore WMDs, if they existed. Which they don't. And we checked for them on April 3rd and 10th, but we didn't really, but they weren't there. Kerry checked Cambodia on Christmas, but he didn't find any either. I'll go check behind the couch. Posted by: Mantis at October 28, 2004 04:51 AM ABC just released a report. Of the 141 Tons of RDX orginally in the depot an inventory taken Jan 14, 2003 showed a little over 3 Tons were left. Posted by: Dan Kauffman at October 28, 2004 07:12 AM Ion Mihai Pacepa, former head of Romainian Intellegence, addressed this very subject in August of 2003. You may find it interesting, particularly the part about Yevgeny Primakov: Posted by: Jeff M at October 28, 2004 07:36 AM I think it is pretty obvious that this stuff was gone before the invasion ever started. I don't know how much it will hurt Kerry-I suspect that the rest of this story will be buried in the backs of the papers, but it sounds like ABC and Fox are actually doing the digging on this one, and the dirt is all landing on Kerry. I think the Russian angle is extremely plausible, especially if they have some sound facts to back it up. I don't think Kerry is going to get traction off of this, had CBS been able to go with its Oct 31 release, maybe, but a week was too much time to blow this story out of the water. I do think there was some coordination-info sharing between the campaign and the media outlets, and I think it is hard to deny that CBS, NYT and the UN are trying to influence the election-I think the UN angle alone is scary enough. Posted by: Just Me at October 28, 2004 07:58 AM zota - You now think that while the US had Iraq under massive surveillance, a large Russian convoy came in to one of the most watched sites in the country, loaded that convoy up with tons of high explosives, trucked it all the way from the outskirts of Baghdad across the border of Syria, and nobody even noticed it happening. (Except that the 380 tons of explosives didn't really exist, so this didn't actually Um zota - Where to begin? I'll start with this: Do you know how to read? The Pentagon has video of trucks moving out from the facility before the war to the Syrian border. There were still 200 tons of the high explosive left. The facility also housed a lot of other components and munition, and the story about Russian involvement isn't limited to this facility. As I said, anyone that takes an arrogant attitude is going to look like a jerk when this thing melts, if the WaTimes story has any evidence to back it up. We'll see. Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 28, 2004 08:34 AM I found this commentary at Captain's Quarters interesting: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002887.php#comments I think he makes a good point that this story seems to be turning from our military and adminstrations incompetence to the UN's IAEA's incompetence, a direction that the Kerry campaign probably doesn't want to see it turn. Now if only the MSM will pick up this real story, and move with it. Posted by: Just Me at October 28, 2004 08:38 AM Not one newspaper has up dated the AL Shit Shit story.. Do i have to wait another news cycle for this to be reported. Posted by: Bryan at October 28, 2004 09:53 AM Bill Gertz is god. I've been working in intel for about a decade, and my hat is off to that man. Posted by: Sciszor at October 28, 2004 09:56 AM zota seems to have some timeline issues. I find this story facinating, almost like something out of a Clancy novel. I think it should only add to our distrust of an international body dictating our national security. Will this development, along with the ever growing oil-for-food story put an end to the UN, akin the the disolvement of the League of Nations? Time will tell. Posted by: gibs. at October 28, 2004 10:13 AM I refer you to www.debka.com as they were reporting the movement of weapons (including WMD), money and KEY PERSONELL from Iraq into Syria, days and weeks PRIOR the start of hostilities. At that time even WSJ comented on the accuracy of their reporting. Posted by: Michail Kalman at October 28, 2004 10:31 AM From what I have read over the last year or so, organized and guarded Iraqi convoys to Syria and Lebanon's Bekka Vally were numerous in the final 8 weeks before the US invasion. Certainly, not all I have read was correct, but the critical mass of likelihood seemed to be. I think it's a mistake to think of this Russian convoy as singular event; this may have been the only Russian convoy, but not the only convoy from Iraq. There has been a lot posted on the web attributed to former Soviet/Communist-bloc officials about standing protocols for "erasing" evidence of illicit Soviet technology involvement under covert alliances. The present Russian convoy controversy seems to present many parallels with those protocols. I hope this matter frees public thinking and resulting discourse to consider the greater issue of fleeing convoys and their relationship to crazy Saddam's clandestine WMD industry. Syria and Iraq were covert principals in the heavily secreted Libyan nuclear WMD program whose existence shocked the international community last year. We must begin to also question what is really going on in Syria. When you smell the smoke, its hard to tell where it comes from; even harder to tell when it comes from several places at once. Posted by: willem at October 28, 2004 10:38 AM I posted an incorrect URL for the Pacepa article above. The correct one is: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030820-081256-6822r.htm
Posted by: Jeff M at October 28, 2004 10:42 AM The DOD, and Rumsfeld, were going apesh*t over transfers (of munitions and people) to Syria, before and during the war. Rumsfeld was even asked if Syria was making itself a target by accepting the stuff; Rumsfeld just said, "it's not helpful," in that ominous tone of his. Some excitable memebers of the press speculated that "Syria was next." The DOD also complained publicly about Russian transfer of military equipment INTO Iraq just before the war (night vision equipment, GPS jammers). The Israelis confirmed all of this contemporaneously. Why can't people remember what happened 18 mos ago? Posted by: MD at October 28, 2004 11:06 AM Because it doesn't fit their agenda.....although, I can remember things that happened 33 years ago....and i wasn't even born then (think Winter Soldier and the Godsend Kerry Senate Trials) Bill...I have been visiting here for a couple weeks now....gotta say....really enjoy checking this place out everyday.... Chris Posted by: MythicalMino at October 28, 2004 11:30 AM Just now on Truth Laid Bare: " ... 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 3 tons of RDX was 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 start of the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003. ... " Hmm.. RDX is a dual-use technology used for nuclear weapons triggers. I wonder how much RDX they recovered from Libya when Kadaffi surrendered the hidden nuke WMD program after Saddam fell? Perhaps Saddam's nuclear program was in Libya after all? Or should we call it the Baath nuclear WMD program? Syria, the last of the Baath movement set up by the Nazis during WWII. And their Vichy buddies are their greatest supporters. Who said Vichy France ever surrendered? Who said this was only about Saddam and not the Baathist political movement? I don't necessarily resent the Russians being capitalists; they're still learning. But the Vichy elite running France.. that's another thing entirely. Posted by: willem at October 28, 2004 11:39 AM Willem, the MSM has given little play to the Libyan story. It's all "ho-hum." They like bad news, and in particular news that can arguably make the US look bad. Libya was one of the great triumphs of this administration, and do you ever hear about it? Posted by: MD at October 28, 2004 11:52 AM Just to let you know, here's another one to deal with. "5 EYEWITNESS NEWS video may be linked to missing explosives in Iraq" Posted by: Mantis at October 28, 2004 11:55 AM Ruh-roh. Key line: The footage is now in the hands of security experts to see if it is indeed the explosives in question. How much explosive? The right kind? The world waits ... Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 28, 2004 12:02 PM Is it my imagination or has the Washington Times story disappeared? Posted by: Tammy in Texas at October 28, 2004 12:26 PM Is it my imagination or has the Washington Times story disappeared? YES and NO-- just click on Nation?Politics and it appears. Posted by: bryan at October 28, 2004 12:35 PM I will ask once again in hopes that it will release some stress. Why doesn't anyone ask what Kerry was referring to when he said "That dump" during the October 8th debate. Posted by: bryan at October 28, 2004 12:38 PM Don't know, but the more I read about this story, the UN and the IAEA, the more I am convinced the real story shouldn't be about the missing explosives, but about the complete and utter incompetence of the UN, the IAEA, and of course that pesky Oil for Food scandal the MSM wants to pretend doesn't exist. Of course the MSM loves the UN, so it is unlikely they will be doing to much digging on that story. Posted by: Just Me at October 28, 2004 01:05 PM Thanks, bryan. Posted by: Tammy in Texas at October 28, 2004 01:18 PM Incompetent? Maybe not. What an effective way to exploit national temperament to sustain a smokescreen. The UN and IAEA are doing exactly what they are being paid to do. What we call incompetence may in fact be the work product they are being paid to produce. Now, why are they being paid to do what they're doing? And why does this seem to want to mesh with the UN/FOI scandal and the Chirac/Iran subterfuge? Posted by: willem at October 28, 2004 01:48 PM To think that looters could have organized the effort to remove 370 tons right under the noses of our military is the same as believing that a typewriter in the early 1970s could have typed the Rathergate memos. Posted by: Another Thought at October 28, 2004 01:50 PM The Guardian gets in the game! Now these guys say they have em: "A militant Islamist group today claimed to be in possession of a large portion of the explosives that went missing from a munitions depot facility in Iraq. The group, calling itself Al-Islam's Army Brigades, made the claim in a video broadcast today and warned that it will use the explosives if foreign troops threaten Iraqi cities. Its video statement said:"Heroic Mujahideen have managed by the grace of God and by coordinating with a...number of the officers and the soldiers of the American intelligence to obtain a very huge amount of the explosives that were in the al-Qaqaa facility, which was under the protection of the American forces." Coordinated with American officers and soldiers? Yeah, right. Posted by: Mantis at October 28, 2004 03:07 PM Does Baghdad Bob write the press releases for the Al Islam Army Brigades? Posted by: MD at October 28, 2004 03:18 PM IAEA spokeswoman Melissa interview on ABC (Australia - ) - ""IAEA inspectors visited Al-Mahaweel on Jan. 15, 2003, and verified the RDX inventory by weighing sampling," Fleming said. She said the RDX at Al-Mahaweel was not under seal but was subject to IAEA monitoring." Posted by: John Anderson at October 28, 2004 05:57 PM So how did these Russsian special forces leave Iraq after the war started? Posted by: rwc at October 28, 2004 06:00 PM Kerry Spot has some interesting questions/thoughts on the ABC affiliate tape. Posted by: Just Me at October 29, 2004 06:40 AM Kerry Spot has some interesting questions/thoughts on the ABC affiliate tape. Posted by: Just Me at October 29, 2004 06:41 AM The BBC this morning has Rumsfeld taking about photos he has shown proving trucks were at the facility two days before the war began. If the Ruskies were there, and the US was watching from the sky...isn't it likely that there was some co-ordination? And wouldn't that be sensible in any event? If the stuff was there and a known harm, why not enlist the Russians to lend a hand? Posted by: Alan at October 29, 2004 08:07 AM It is amazing that our high powered top secret urgent spy satellites that were able to provide photos "proving" Saddam had weapons of mass destruction didn't do a better job of catching the HUGE convoy of explosives the Russians carted off. I think the fact that George Bush whining that Kerry is criticizing him when Kerry doesn't know all the facts is interesting. Bush & Co. got word two weeks ago that these explosives were missing, and they haven't come up with a coherent story as to what happened yet! It is pure incompetence on the part of the worst Presidency in the history of our country. Posted by: 1proudliberal at October 29, 2004 04:40 PM Posted by: puppetz at October 30, 2004 04:21 PM |
Feed Me, Seymour
bill *at* indcjournal *dot* com
Support Our Advertisers
Search
Archives
June 2008May 2008 April 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004
Extras
PDARSD Atom RSS 2.0 RSS 1.0
Credits
Our Blogroll
|