PDA

View Full Version : Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq


gldstwmn
10-24-2004, 09:48 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html?hp&ex=1098676800&en=61cf6e1aa29b7871&ei=5094&partner=homepage

By JAMES GLANZ, WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER

Published: October 25, 2004


his article was reported and written by James Glanz, William J. Broad and David E. Sanger.

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, produce missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no-man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Saturday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished after the American invasion last year.

The White House said President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was informed within the past month that the explosives were missing. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed. American officials have never publicly announced the disappearance, but beginning last week they answered questions about it posed by The New York Times and the CBS News program "60 Minutes."

American weapons experts say their immediate concern is that the explosives could be used in major bombing attacks against American or Iraqi forces: the explosives, mainly HMX and RDX, could be used to produce bombs strong enough to shatter airplanes or tear apart buildings. The bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound of the material of the type stolen from Al Qaqaa, and somewhat larger amounts were apparently used in the bombing of a housing complex in November 2003 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the blasts in a Moscow apartment complex in September 1999 that killed nearly 300 people.

The explosives could also be used to trigger a nuclear weapon, which was why international nuclear inspectors had kept a watch on the material. But the other components of an atom bomb - the design and the radioactive fuel - are more difficult to obtain. "This is a high explosives risk, but not necessarily a proliferation risk," one senior Bush administration official said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured, European diplomats said in interviews last week. Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded, beyond the fact that the occupation force was overwhelmed by the amount of munitions they found throughout the country.

The Qaqaa facility, about 30 miles south of Baghdad, was well known to American intelligence officials: Saddam Hussein made conventional warheads at the site, and the I.A.E.A. dismantled parts of his nuclear program there in the early 1990's after the Persian Gulf war in 1991. In the prelude to the 2003 invasion, Mr. Bush cited a number of other "dual use" items - including tubes that the administration contended could be converted to use for the nuclear program - as a justification for invading Iraq. After the invasion, when widespread looting began in Iraq, the international weapons experts grew concerned that the Qaqaa stockpile could fall into unfriendly hands. In May, an internal I.A.E.A. memorandum warned that terrorists might be helping "themselves to the greatest explosives bonanza in history."

An Arsenal Turned No-Man's Land

To see the bunkers that makeup the vast Qaqaa complex today, it is hard to recall that just two years ago it was part of Saddam Hussein's secret military complex. The bunkers are so large that they are reminiscent of pyramids, though with rounded edges and the tops chopped off. Several are blackened and eviscerated as a result of American bombing. Smokestacks rise in the distance.

Today, Al Qaqaa has become a no-man's land that is generally avoided even by the Marines in charge of north Babil Province. Headless bodies are found there. An ammunition dump has been looted, and on Sunday an Iraqi employee of The New York Times who made a furtive visit to the site saw looters tearing out metal fixtures. Bare pipes within the darkened interior of one of the buildings were a tangled mess, zigzagging along charred walls. Someone fired a shot, probably to frighten the visitors off.

"It's like Mars on Earth," said Maj. Dan Whisnant, an intelligence officer for the Second Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment. "It would take probably 10 battalions 10 years to clear that out."

Saddam Hussein's engineers acquired HMX and RDX when they embarked on a crash effort to build an atomic bomb in the late 1980's. It did not go smoothly. In 1989, a huge blast ripped through Al Qaqaa, the boom reportedly heard hundreds of miles away. The explosion, it was later determined, occurred when a stockpile of the high explosives ignited.

After the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the United Nations discovered Iraq's clandestine effort and put the I.A.E.A., the United Nations arms agency, in charge of Al Qaqaa's huge stockpile. Weapon inspectors determined that Iraq had bought the explosives from France, China and Yugoslavia, a European diplomat said.

But the majority of the explosives were not destroyed, arms experts familiar with the decision recalled, because Iraq argued that it should be allowed to keep them for eventual use in mining and civilian construction. But Al Qaqaa was still under the authority of the Military Industrial Council, which was led for a time by Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law. He defected to the West, then returned to Iraq and was immediately killed.

In 1996, the United Nations hauled away some of the HMX and used it to blow up Al Hakam, a vast Iraqi factory for making germ weapons.

The Qaqaa stockpile went unmonitored from late 1998, when United Nations inspectors left Iraq, to late 2002, when they came back. Upon their return, the inspectors discovered that about 35 tons of HMX were missing. The Iraqis said they had used the explosive in civilian programs.

The remaining stockpile was no secret. Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the I.A.E.A., frequently talked about it publicly as he investigated, in late 2002 and early 2003, the Bush administration's claims that Iraq was secretly renewing its pursuit of nuclear arms. He ordered his weapons inspectors to conduct an inventory, and publicly reported their findings to the Security Council on Jan. 9, 2003.

During the following weeks, the I.A.E.A. repeatedly drew public attention to the explosives. In New York on Feb. 14, nine days after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented his arms case to the Security Council, Dr. ElBaradei reported that the I.A.E.A. had found no sign of new atom endeavors but "has continued to investigate the relocation and consumption of the high explosive HMX."

An Inspector's Warning

A European diplomat reported that Jacques Baute, head of the I.A.E.A.'s Iraq nuclear inspection team, warned officials at the United States mission in Vienna about the danger of the nuclear sites and materials once under I.A.E.A. supervision, including Al Qaqaa.

But apparently, little was done. A senior Bush administration official said that during the initial race to Baghdad, American forces "went through the bunkers, but saw no materials bearing the I.A.E.A. seal." It is unclear whether they ever returned.

By late 2003, diplomats said, I.A.E.A. experts had obtained commercial satellite photos of Al Qaqaa showing that two of roughly 10 bunkers that contained HMX appeared to have been leveled by titanic blasts, apparently during the war. They presumed some of the HMX had exploded, but that is unclear.

Other HMX bunkers were untouched. Some were damaged but not devastated. I.A.E.A. experts say they assume that just before the invasion the Iraqis followed their standard practice of moving crucial explosives out of buildings, so they would not be tempting targets. If so, the experts say, the Iraqi must have broken I.A.E.A. seals on bunker doors and moved most of the HMX to nearby fields, where it would have been lightly camouflaged - and ripe for looting.

But the Bush administration would not allow the agency back into the country to verify the status of the stockpile. In May 2004, Iraqi officials say in interviews, they warned L. Paul Bremer III, the American head of the occupation authority, that Al Qaqaa had probably been looted. It is unclear if that warning was passed anywhere. Efforts to reach Mr. Bremer by telephone were unsuccessful. But by that time, the Americans were preoccupied with the transfer of authority to Iraq, and the insurgency was gaining strength. "It's not an excuse," said one senior administration official. "But a lot of things went by the boards."

Early this month, Dr. ElBaradei put public pressure on the interim Iraqi government to start the process of accounting for nuclear-related materials still ostensibly under I.A.E.A. supervision, including the Al Qaqaa stockpile.

"Iraq is obliged," he wrote to the president of the Security Council on Oct. 1, "to declare semiannually changes that have occurred or are foreseen."

The agency, Dr. ElBaradei added pointedly, "has received no such notifications or declarations from any state since the agency's inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq in March 2003."

Two weeks ago, on Oct. 10, Dr. Mohammed J. Abbas of the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology wrote a letter to the I.A.E.A. to say that the Qaqaa stockpile had been lost . He added that his ministry judged that an "urgent updating of the registered materials is required."

A chart in his letter listed 341.7 metric tons, about 377 American tons, of HMX, RDX and PETN as missing.

Five days later, on Oct. 15, European diplomats said, the I.A.E.A. wrote the United States mission in Vienna to forward the Iraqi letter and ask that American authorities inform the international coalition in Iraq of the missing explosives.

Dr. ElBaradei, a European diplomat said, is "extremely concerned" about the potentially "devastating consequences" of the vanished stockpile.

Its fate remains unknown. Glenn Earhart, manager of an Army Corps of Engineers program in Huntsville, Ala., that is in charge of rounding up and destroying lost Iraqi munitions, said he and his colleagues knew nothing of the whereabouts of the Qaqaa stockpile.

Administration officials say Iraq was awash in munitions, including other stockpiles of exotic explosives.

"The only reason this stockpile was under seal," said one senior administration official, "is because it was located at Al Qaqaa," where nuclear work had gone on years ago.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Buh bye George. :wavey:

dissention
10-25-2004, 08:47 AM
I know I shouldn't laugh, but...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

DeeGeMe
10-25-2004, 08:56 AM
Lockhart Statement

This is about right:


Washington, DC – Kerry-Edwards Senior Advisor Joe Lockhart issued the following statement on reports of missing explosives in Iraq:

“Today, the Bush administration must answer for what may be the most grave and catastrophic mistake in a tragic series of blunders in Iraq. How did they fail to secure nearly 380 tons of known, deadly explosives despite clear warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency to do so? And why was this information unearthed by reporters -- and was it covered up by our national security officials?

“These explosives can be used to blow up airplanes, level buildings, attack our troops and detonate nuclear weapons. The Bush administration knew where this stockpile was, but took no action to secure the site. They were urgently and specifically informed that terrorists could be helping themselves to the most dangerous explosives bonanza in history, but nothing was done to prevent it from happening.

“This material was monitored and controlled by UN inspectors before the invasion of Iraq. Thanks to the stunning incompetence of the Bush administration, we now have no idea where it is.

“We need to know what the administration knew about this and when. We need to know why they failed to safeguard these explosives and keep them out of the hands of our enemies. The National Security Advisor should be at her desk in Washington tomorrow to work this problem and answer these questions, instead of giving speeches in battleground states.”

strandinthewind
10-26-2004, 05:43 AM
From Fox - mind you this is an example of admin. bashing from the dreaded Fox!!!!! Just another example of the current admin.'s lack of plan for Iraq, which I think will cost us dearly in the end and even more than it has now.

Reporter's Notebook: Weapons Galore

Monday, October 25, 2004

By Greg Palkot

When I heard the news about some 380 tons of dangerous HMX and RDX explosives disappearing from the Al Qaqaa (search) military installation south of Baghdad I had just one reaction: Tell me something I don't know. This being my fifth visit to Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein, I long ago learned this whole country is one big dangerous weapons bazaar.

Weapons of mass destruction (search) were never the problem. The "Mass of Destroying (conventional) Weapons" is the real deadly foe facing the United States as it tries to rein in things here and protect our fighting men and women. And the fact the stuff was out there for anybody to grab is the real problem.

I remembered one hot, dusty morning in the summer of 2003. I was spending time with Lt. Col Steve Russell of the 4th Infantry Division out of Tikrit. At the end of a long night of raids we stopped by the house of a guy who was supposed to be one of the unit's best sources.

For some reason, one of Col. Russell's men wandered back to a large shed behind the house. He discovered an AK-47 automatic rifle. And then another. Then another. I think the guys pulled out about 200 guns from the shed.

Then — and I don't know how one of Russell's resourceful guys thought of doing this — a soldier literally "rooted" out big slabs of something wrapped in plastic buried in the guy's orchard. It turned out the stuff inside was a plastic explosive, the type of thing that's "gone missing" at Al Qaqaa. The kind of thing that can be fashioned into IEDs that mangle legs and arms of American forces here.

The point of that story is not that you have to be a friend of Saddam (which this guy was) to have a pile of arms and explosives, but that anybody here can get what they want. Saddam literally spent billions on weaponry and stashed it away in bases, weapons stores and police stations.

During the days and months following the fall of the regime it was open season. I came to Iraq just a few days after Saddam was finished. Looters were still pushing supermarket carts full of bad stuff taken from unwatched government facilities. When I was nosing around the headquarters of Saddam's version of the CIA, the Mukhabbarat, in Baghdad, so were a few dozen kids looking to find guns or anything else for fun and games — and killing.

And that's what happened at Al Qaqaa. I'd actually been there in February of 2003. A desperate Iraqi regime had brought a bunch of reporters to the site, which the United States had said contained prohibited weapons. We didn't see any. But we did see piles of missiles, which could do real harm in the wrong hands.

And, no doubt, in one of the many bunkers we passed, lay those couple hundred of tons of explosives that are now missing, according to the Iraqi interim government.

I called the IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, to get more details. I asked spokesman Mark Gwozdecky if the agency was concerned, since the stolen material can be fashioned to trigger atomic weapons or used for more conventional attacks. There was a pause on the end of the line. Then he caught himself and said, "Of course we're concerned."

Understatement. The regular drumbeat of press releases form the U.S. military is of "finds" of weapons caches. What each successive wave of American military that comes here is finding is that the place is another branch of Guns 'R' Us.

In the days when Western reporters could still roam freely I would stroll though markets here. You could buy anything: Chinese fans, toothpaste and machine guns. Well, the toothpaste is out of the tube. The explosives have already been snatched from Al Qaqaa and other places. Now it's coming back to haunt the U.S. military and everybody else here trying to rebuild the country.

Weapon buy-back programs like the one that just wrapped up in Baghad's Sadr City are impressive. Five million dollars paid out and 19,000 landmines turned in. But according to many who were there, including the U.S. military up until the last few days of the drive, the weaponry given up was less for the bang and more for the bucks.

Much good "bad" stuff, no doubt, was stashed away in cupboards and closets, laying in wait for the next U.S. convoy. Iraq's interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi (search) has recently announced a nationwide extension of the weapons buy-back program. Why do I think no one is going to be turning over the 380 tons of explosives from Al Qaqaa? Or if they do, why do I think someone else has another 380 tons explosives ready for other evil use?

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,136572,00.html

DeeGeMe
10-26-2004, 06:27 AM
Fox News? You're quoting Fox News as a credible news source? Thanks for getting my day off to such a humorous start!

strandinthewind
10-26-2004, 06:34 AM
Fox News? You're quoting Fox News as a credible news source? Thanks for getting my day off to such a humorous start!

Blind partisanship is never pretty - and you suffer dreadfully from it :laugh:

Please tell what about that article in any way supports the current administration and/or is not credible. You cannot and you know it :wavey:

dissention
10-26-2004, 07:17 AM
Blind partisanship is never pretty - and you suffer dreadfully from it :laugh:

Please tell what about that article in any way supports the current administration and/or is not credible. You cannot and you know it :wavey:

Please tell me where it "bashes" the administration. :shrug:

The fact that you constantly source Faux News is rather disturbing. You and I both know that they are not news. Their tactic is to say one slightly negative thing about Republicans and this administration for every 12 negative things they say about Democrats and Kerry, that way no one can say that they never say anything bad about Bush and that they're a mouthpiece for the GOP. It smacks of bull**** and it's ridiculous to source them when you have millions of other credible sources at your fingertips. You're taking "articles" from the same GOP website that posted that sludge that Carl Cameron wrote about Kerry after the debate. And you call the questioning of posting from that site "blind partisanship"? Puhleeze.

Go buy Outfoxed. :wavey:

As for the story not being credible, it's more of an opinion piece than anything else. We have no corroboration on many things in it.

strandinthewind
10-26-2004, 08:09 AM
Please tell me where it "bashes" the administration. :shrug:

The fact that you constantly source Faux News is rather disturbing. You and I both know that they are not news. Their tactic is to say one slightly negative thing about Republicans and this administration for every 12 negative things they say about Democrats and Kerry, that way no one can say that they never say anything bad about Bush and that they're a mouthpiece for the GOP. It smacks of bull**** and it's ridiculous to source them when you have millions of other credible sources at your fingertips. You're taking "articles" from the same GOP website that posted that sludge that Carl Cameron wrote about Kerry after the debate. And you call the questioning of posting from that site "blind partisanship"? Puhleeze.

Go buy Outfoxed. :wavey:

As for the story not being credible, it's more of an opinion piece than anything else. We have no corroboration on many things in it.

I have seen Outfoxed :cool:

I know it is an opinion. I think it does, however bash the Bush Administration. It says in no uncertain terms that Iraq was a free for all for arms after the war and the armed forces essentially did nothing about it despite being warned about it. How can that be a good thing? Do you really think this editorial supports W and his policies in Iraq?

I think you are taking issue with my use of the word "bash" because you think I implied stronger rhetoric than the article contains. To me it bashes - but I'll soften it and says it paints the current admin.'s strategy after the invasion of Iraq in a bad light and makes them look like they did not secure these munitions sites. Better :laugh:

As for quoting Fox - I read about three newspapers a day (AJC, USAToday (McNews :laugh: I get it for free so why not :shrug: ) , and the WSJ) and I visit the sites for Fox, NY Times, CNN, Reuters, BBC, Washington Post, and a few others almost daily. I find they all report the big stories (mostly syndicated) the same. It is the editorial pages and in house produced stories that are slanted (some much more than others) - I enjoy reading different takes on things - I think it sharpens my insight. I mean if I read only one source that says everything I want to hear and how I want to hear it, how am I going to learn anything much less form my own opinion :shrug:

In the instant case, I saw this on Fox and did not look anywhere else. But, I think this reporter was giving an accurate version of what he saw and what he saw does "paints the current admin.'s strategy after the invasion of Iraq in a bad light and makes them look like they did not secure these munitions sites." :cool: I think it is accurate because it seems logical and he uses facts to support it.

But, I know those on the far left can never ever under any circumstances say Fox does anything right (no pun intended :laugh: ) - because to do so would in some way lend the slightest bit of credibility to it and that cannot happen :rolleyes: But, I do agree with you that Fox is clearly slanted to the far right. I just do not think that fact makes everything they say de facto untrue.

dissention
10-26-2004, 11:54 AM
But, I know those on the far left can never ever under any circumstances say Fox does anything right (no pun intended :laugh: ) - because to do so would in some way lend the slightest bit of credibility to it and that cannot happen :rolleyes: But, I do agree with you that Fox is clearly slanted to the far right. I just do not think that fact makes everything they say de facto untrue.

Any news organization that posts mock stories and quotes about a presidential candidate and tries to pass it off as real news has a serious credibility issue. Any news organization that sends daily memos to their staff that outline how to attack a certain political party has a serious credibility issue. Any news organization like Faux News has a serious credibility issue. So, personally, I'd rather not read or see anything from such an organization that would try to pass off such editorialized bull**** to me, the consumer, as news. The fact that you constantly post articles from them puzzles me. It must be very trying on your patience to have to slog through so much vile lies to get one article that has a truth to it.

So, for me, I find it very absurd and offensive to my intellect for someone to say I'm simply a "blind partisan" because I don't want to read or see anything from Faux News. You watch O'Lielly, I don't. You visit the website, I don't. You take stock in what they say, I don't, especially when I can get factual and unbiased reporting form a million other websites and news organizations.

dissention
10-26-2004, 11:56 AM
How can that be a good thing? Do you really think this editorial supports W and his policies in Iraq?


You're not living in the real world, my Southern friend. I could name 10 people off the top of my head who despise Dimson's Iraq policies yet still support him.

strandinthewind
10-26-2004, 12:48 PM
Any news organization that posts mock stories and quotes about a presidential candidate and tries to pass it off as real news has a serious credibility issue. Any news organization that sends daily memos to their staff that outline how to attack a certain political party has a serious credibility issue. Any news organization like Faux News has a serious credibility issue. So, personally, I'd rather not read or see anything from such an organization that would try to pass off such editorialized bull**** to me, the consumer, as news. The fact that you constantly post articles from them puzzles me. It must be very trying on your patience to have to slog through so much vile lies to get one article that has a truth to it.

So, for me, I find it very absurd and offensive to my intellect for someone to say I'm simply a "blind partisan" because I don't want to read or see anything from Faux News. You watch O'Lielly, I don't. You visit the website, I don't. You take stock in what they say, I don't, especially when I can get factual and unbiased reporting form a million other websites and news organizations.

and where did I call you a blind partisan (at least in this thread :wink: ) ? I was speaking in general terms, except for DeeGee who I think is blindly partisan based on the resposnses to me. But, you are pretty partisan or is that a pretty partisan :xoxo: :laugh:

strandinthewind
10-26-2004, 12:49 PM
You're not living in the real world, my Southern friend. I could name 10 people off the top of my head who despise Dimson's Iraq policies yet still support him.

Name them :laugh:

(just joking)

But seriously, I am sure some far right winger could name 10 people with the opposite view, and so on and so on and so on.

Again, I like to read news and viewpoints from all angles. So, sue me :cool: AND - I am able to see through the BS, which exists on both sides :shrug:

AND - you demurred and did not answer my question :cool: :angel:

gldstwmn
10-27-2004, 12:50 AM
But, I know those on the far left can never ever under any circumstances say Fox does anything right (no pun intended :laugh: ) - because to do so would in some way lend the slightest bit of credibility to it and that cannot happen

It can't happen because they simply are not a credible news organization. Rupert Murdoch owns the New York Post as well. While I admit, Page Six is a fun read, I certainly don't look to it as any beacon of good journalism. This is the way I feel about Fox.

strandinthewind
10-27-2004, 08:14 AM
It can't happen because they simply are not a credible news organization. Rupert Murdoch owns the New York Post as well. While I admit, Page Six is a fun read, I certainly don't look to it as any beacon of good journalism. This is the way I feel about Fox.

I agree and I do not look to Fox as a anything but what it is and sometimes it is interesting to read to get the other side's view. But, yes, Fox is slanted to the right - there is no doubt about that. I just thought this article was, surprisingly not and was actually an accurate depiction. So, I cited it no matter the source, etc. Then people pounced on me - which I think is ashame because the article is interesting :shrug: