ABC’s done a little investigative work on the April 18th KSTP video:
Video Suggests Explosives Disappeared After U.S. Took Control
Actual pictures of barrells, seals and stuff over at http://www.dailykos.com/
(same KSTP-TV embedded reporter source, just different photos…)
I’m surprised nobody has posted this…
Embedded ABC news team has April 18th footage of explosives at Al Qaqaa.
IAEA seals at Al Qaqaa still intact as of April 18, 2003.
Kiss the “they were gone before we got there” theory goodbye, kids.
Triple simulpost! 
You know, looking at the photo of those seals, I couldn’t help but think of the cartoon I once saw of a guy opening a box containing a toaster and saying, “Somehow, I always imagined the Nobel Prize would be something more than this.”
When they were talking about the IAEA seals, I was imagining something more dramatic than that picture shows…Not surprising that they could be missed.
I wasn’t such a big fan of the whole embedded reporter shtick but I am beginning to see how it comes in useful!
I was willing to believe that the stuff was gone before Americans arrived, there was a chance of that. But …
1 - Because of the war, the stuff is gone, and that is the fault of the Bush Admin.
2 - Because the Bush admin did not know exactly when the stuff was taken or how it was taken, then it could possibly have been taken after the invasion and it is a major failure in strategy.
3 - If this new evidence turns out to be true, with the video of the explosives, then it’s a fact that the stuff was taken after the invasion, then the Bush admin’s failure has led to bad consequences.
But what’s up with this thing about Russia? Is it flailing by the Bush admin in hopes that it can’t be rebutted in time for the election? Or do they have actual evidence of Russian agents in Iraq?
They were there after Baghdad fell, with IAEA seals intact, as the ABC video shows. Baghdad fell on 9 April (the staged demolition of the statue took place on that day), and they were there on 18 April. US forces were in control of the area, and were thus reponsible for the explosives they knew were there. They’re gone now.
- They were there
- The US was responsible
- They’re gone.
QED. We win.
You know, I immediately regretted this. It’s not a win at all - it’s a colossal loss for the Iraqi people and the US troops who are dying in their hundreds because of this stuff. I withdraw this statement and apologise for making it.
U.S. Military Checks Satellite Images for Clues About Missing Explosives
Thursday, October 28, 2004
© 2004 FOX News Network, LLC
"Senior sources told FOX News that Shaw actually works in a defense building away from the Pentagon, and it isn’t clear how this person has the authority or the knowledge to speak on such a matter.
Mr. Shaw works in 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.
I remember stories and articles published at this time.
But IIRC, these stories were about russian operatives securing documents and informations, not explosives.
I also seem to remember that some russians were killed in an attack against one of their convoy leaving the country , attack which, according to some, could have been something else that an unfortunate mistake.
Rumsfeld Suggests Explosives Were Moved
Oct 28, 2004
© 2004 The Associated Press[INDENT]
“The idea it was suddenly looted and moved out, all of these tons of equipment, I think is at least debatable.”
–Rumsfeld
The Pentagon also declassified and released a single image, taken by reconnaissance aircraft or satellite just days before the war, showing two trucks outside one of the dozens of storage bunkers at the Al-Qaqaa munitions base.
The particular bunker is not one known to have contained any of the missing explosives …
[/INDENT]
Do negative pregnants indicate time to read between the lines?
There’s this recurring phenomenon of my noting the recurring phenomenon in which posters post as if they are unaware that we can scroll up, or click on a previous page, and see what they previously said.
A case in point:
Rik has furnished us with the cite that backs this up, or so he says:
Hell, they could have been bringing more explosives to the bunker. :rolleyes:
The satellite photo running with the story is apparently NOT the one that the pentagon released today. The ‘newly declassified’ photo is from “just days before the war” while the image accompanying the story was taken on Sept. 7, 2004.
I’ve not yet been able to find the newly declassified photo online. However, ABC news ran a satellite photo with the story on nightly news that may have been the real thing.
In that photo, the two trucks looked, to me at least, more like parts of a ‘mobile biological weapons production facility’ than they resembled vehicles for hauling high explosives. :dubious:
U.S. Military Releases Al-Qaqaa Image
Thursday, October 28, 2004
© 2004 FOX News Network, LLC
… Senior Defense officials adamantly refused to speculate as to what is happening at the bunker …it’s anyone’s guess.
… the photo has been released to show that the Al-Qaqaa facility “was not hermetically sealed” …
Defense officials told FOX News they have other photos … which they will not release, that show similar activity. [What activity? “it’s anyone’s guess”] One purportedly shows several similar heavy lift transports parked on an airfield … The airfield picture was taken on April 1, 2003.
… photos taken on March 14 and March 20 show no vehicular activity at Al-Qaqaa …
[INDENT]“We take no view of the purpose of these trucks.” “All we’re saying is this is two big trucks in front of a bunker.”
*–a senior official *
“It is also important to note that this was the main high explosives storage facility in Iraq, and it was well-known through IAEA reports to the Security Council.”
–IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming[/INDENT]
That’s the right picture.
The lead truck holds the fermentor and harvesting equipment. The smaller second truck holds the lyophillization and bottling facility.
Seriously though, given the administration’s history with this sort of photo, how are we to take their estimation of its import at face value? Despite the text of the article denying that they know what is happening on the ground, the damned picture is labeled “Loading Activity.” Is the date added to the photo “17 March 2003” also innacurate? Do we even know if those trucks were stationary at the time the photo was taken?
OK, somebody has to ask the dumb question. Al Kaka is a munitions dump, yes? Lots of rockets and shit. Weapons. Now, if the Iraqi’s got the notion that they were under some sort of military threat from, oh, say, Costa Rica and the Seychelles and lets not forget Poland…wouldn’t one sort of expect trucks to be bustling in and out picking up some, like, muntions? From the munitions dump.
You know for a minute there when I clicked on the links I thought you might have had something. I should know better by now.
As usual, you guys make certain pronouncements from ambiguous information.
From the cite:
“Using GPS technology and talking with members of the 101st Airborne Division, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS has determined the crew embedded with the troops may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa”
May have been at Al Qaqaa. Wow! That’s proof.
“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”
So ABC has attempted to prove if that stuff is the same kind of stuff that went missing, and were unable to do so.
You on the other hand are not only certain that it is the same kind, you somehow assertain that it is the very same material being talked about.
Tell me, how is it that you are able to make this determination when nobody else can?
Oh, and on the next page we have a picture of what a seal looks like.
Your cite says itself that it does not prove what you say it proves.
Do you beleive this? Personally, I don’t have a stake in this or a preference one way or the other. I really don’t. It doesn’t matter to me.
From where I stand, your claim is disingenuous.
Everybody or nobody could be lying about this. But…
One fact remains: 386 tons is a helluva lot of stuff. IIRC 80,000 pounds (40 tons) is the legal load limit for 18 wheelers in the U.S… So somebody moved 9 or 10 transfer truck, or 386 pickup truck loads of materials. (38.6 trucks for 10 days, or 10 trucks a day for 38.6 days?) My point is that it took a lot of time and a lot of men to move all that. Nobody just whisked 386 tons of material away in an hour-long afternoon raid.
I would think that there is more than just one satellite picture of such extensive activity. Why not show 'em all?
From a practical standpoint, there’s something about this whole story that doesn’t make any sense.
To further muddy the waters, here’s a story with photos released by the Pentagon today.
The photos were taken on March 17, and show a bunch of trucks at the facility.