The Command Post
2004 US Presidential Election
« US Electoral Litigation - An Overseas View | Main | Confusion reigns over Ohio voting »
October 29, 2004
| Looking in The Wrong Spot : IAEA Defends Report

From Reuters via the ABC comes some data that makes the whole mess of videos, on-the-spot reports and so onabout Al Qaaqaa moot.

Iraq told the IAEA the explosives at the sprawling Al Qaqaa military facility had gone missing through theft and looting due to lack of security after the US-led invasion.

But ABC News (America) reports that confidential IAEA documents show that on January 14, 2003, UN inspectors found just over three tons of one type of explosive, RDX.

That inspection was conducted before the war began.

“The bulk of the RDX was stored at another site that was under Al Qaqaa’s jurisdiction,” IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said.

She says that the report seen by ABC only covers the Al Qaqaa site itself.

The second site, Al Mahaweel, is roughly 45 kilometres from Al Qaqaa.

“They (Iraq) considered that site part of Al Qaqaa and that’s how it was always declared,” she said.

“IAEA inspectors inventoried that site on January 15, 2003,” the day after the Al Qaqaa inspection reported by ABC.
[…]
However, Ms Fleming says it is possible that the Iraqi report on missing explosives overstated the amount of RDX by 10 tons because it did not take account of an earlier Iraqi statement that that amount had been used for civilian purposes.

So the reason why the US Army, NBC, and so on said they didn’t find any RDX amongst the other explosives at Al Qaqaa was… because there weren’t any there, and hadn’t been since at least January 14. But the figures for the other site, over 20 miles away(!) didn’t take into account that the Iraqis had broken the seals and removed some of it before the war.



Posted by Alan Brain at October 29, 2004 10:56 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Geeeesh. I can’t wait for James to ‘weigh in’ with his brilliant analysis.

I think we have the makin’s of a GhostConvoy here…

Posted by: Cap'n DOC [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2004 12:50 PM

It was, it wasn’t. It should have been, we don’t know for sure, possibly, maybe, we WISH it had been.
I believe that the IAEA is unlawfully trying to influence the elections of MY beautiful country.
Get your friggin hands out of Americas election, morons. Tell the truth, not your version or what you would like it to be. THE truth.

Posted by: joe citizen [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2004 01:52 PM

Al Qaqaa, Al Mahaweel, 400 tons, 3 tons, it was there, it wasn’t there …

All we need now is for Dan Rather to help us sort out all the facts.

Maybe the next October surprise from the left will be about the discovery of sand in Iraq.

Posted by: George [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2004 02:10 PM

This still seems like a better story for Kerry than Bush. Here’s why; The initial shock value promoted by Kerry did some damage, and the slow and peicemeal response by bush and the gov’t. I beleive the gov’t is coming out with information as it gets it. I don’t beleive, however, that the average American will understand. It seems to me that most people assume someone at the Pentagon can look it up on their computer in about 5 minutes and give us an answer as to what happened with those weapons. Anything short of that is perceived as suspect. Worse yet, however, is the gov’t giving us an answer in 5 minutes and having it turn out false.

Posted by: snappy [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2004 02:22 PM

Snappy, that’s a pretty good analysis. It relies on the notoriously short attention span that Americans are famous for.

but I wonder. The MSM has been taking a pretty good licking lately and certainly the appearance of collusion between the NYT and CBS tarnished these goods even before they were delivered.

In any case Kerry has seemingly moved off of this. One reason might be that it brings Iraq/terror back into focus and that’s can’t help him get elected.

Posted by: skip [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2004 04:02 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.


Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)