**You should engage in a deep and serious re-evaluation of your relationship with both the news media and political types.
Politicians tricked you on this one.
The news media provided you with the wherewithal to determine that you were being tricked, but you didn’t catch on. **
I call a huge fat Bull Shit on this assertion.
Examine if you will the transcript of the news conference with Major Pearson you’ll see that no such assertion was ever made.
[INDENT]New Developments Regarding Missing Explosives
PEARSON: We entered in through this area and address, and our mission was to find any exposed ammunition, clear ammunition that was – had the potential to be pose a threat to U.S. forces or as easy access.
DI RITA: It encompasses a variety of ammunition.
The major’s unit pulled 100 – 250 tons of total equipment out of this facility, including a lot of plastic explosives. How much? I don’t think we know. It was a portion of the kinds of things, including detonation cord.
[Note absolutely no references to HMX whose amount is not in question.]
QUESTION: Major, could you please better describe the explosives that were removed? Were they primarily assembled weapons? Were they raw material like the granular HMX or RDX? And could you, sort of, give us a ratio out of that 250 tons how much were assembled weapons and how much were raw material?
PEARSON: As a conventional ammunition ordnance officer, I deal with ammunition logistics management. I am not a technical specialist. I am not explosive ordnance disposal or technical intelligence. My role and what I’ve been trained on is to manage ammunition facilities and mitigate the risk and exposure to U.S. forces and civilians.
The specifics of what we talked about that we pulled out of there, from my recollection, is some TNT, plastic explosives; I can’t further define other than that, plastic explosives. Detonation cords, initiators, and white phosphorous rounds, which were a higher priority for us to go in there.
QUESTION: So you don’t know…
QUESTION: But do you believe there was HMX?
QUESTION: Yes. You don’t know if there was HMX?
DI RITA: Let me handle that.
QUESTION: Did it look like those barrels – you know this video that ABC had.
DI RITA: We’ve described what we know. And as we learn more, we’ll describe that. The major has…
QUESTION: Why doesn’t the major talk about that?
DI RITA: Excuse me for one moment.
The major had – we had units that had responsibility for identifying and understanding what IAEA seals were. The major’s unit had the responsibility to go in and clear conventional ordnance.
DI RITA: He saw some photos from yesterday, and had understood that, as I said, the palletized boxes – I think you said those were the kinds of things you removed. The barrels that some people have said is [sic] HMX…
QUESTION: You talk about this procedure though. You say there’s a procedure in place and they know what to do. And yet apparently the major didn’t know he was even looking for HMX or what was there or what to do if you found it sealed.
Do you remember seeing the IAEA seals?
PEARSON: There was – I do not – I did not see any IAEA seals at the locations that we went into. I was not looking for that.
My mission specifically was to go in there and to prevent the exposure of U.S. forces and to minimize that by taking out what was easily accessible and putting it back[?] and bringing it into our captured ammunition holding area.
DI RITA: As we’re developing our better understanding of this, we have a – the term that was being used throughout the theater for RDX is plastic explosives. It was, sort of, an interchangeable term.
So we don’t – I can’t say that RDX that was on the list of the IAEA is in what the major pulled out.
My only point on that is I’m not sure what we know what the IAEA declared, because they first said there were some 141 tons of it there. We are now trying to better understand some of the reports that indicate** there may have been only three tons of it at that particular building**.
QUESTION: Isn’t that tonnage discrepancy already accounted for by the IAEA by the fact it is stored at a nearby facility that is called the…
DI RITA: We are trying to understand that better. I’m not in any position to comment on that. The initial report was 141 tons at this facility. We are hearing some more refined explanation by the IAEA, that, well, maybe** this facility really meant another facility 30 kilometers away**.
QUESTION: Could you describe the palletized boxes? Mr. Di Rita just mentioned palletized boxes. Could you describe what kind of boxes they were?
Did you actually go into bunkers or just go to those materiels [sic] that were easily accessible, because we’ve seen much of it lying around on the ground?
PEARSON: We went into the bunkers that were easily accessible.
PEARSON: I went to in bunkers that we would easily get into and remove that.
QUESTION: What does that mean? Sorry. Can you clarify?
PEARSON: That it was open, and I was able to take my troops in there, and that was exposed.
QUESTION: There were no seals. So that would…
PEARSON: No seals. I did not see any seals.
QUESTION: … it was not HMX.
PEARSON: My intent was to go in there and the stuff that was easily exposed. I completed my mission, I got what I needed to get.[/INDENT]
This is also addressed by Mr. di Rita in the transcript of news conference quoted above. To wit, the other 138 tons were stored at a neighboring facility.
Not if one actually reads the reports for what is said rather than what is trying to be implied.
The hoax is that there’s some sort of an explanation as per what you allude to.
Consider the big misdirection by the Pentagon.
First there was the release of almost entirely unrelated photos. Actual quotes from the Pentagon: “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.” I mean come on. the photo was of an unrelated time, of an unrelated place (not where the explosives in question were stored), showing that just prior to an invasion the Iraqi army had some trucks in front of a bunker that housed military supplies. Somehow the fact that there were trucks in front of a warehouse of military supplies which were not the explosives in question immediately preceding a major invasion seems pretty mundane.
"Di Rita acknowledged that the image says nothing about what happened to the explosives. "
Why release these photos that say “nothing” at all about the issue at hand?
Why do you suppose the Pentagon did not release pictures of trucks in front of the bunkers that held the HMX loading the stuff up?
Is it because they were not monitoring the site? This seems to be a dubious assumption.
In addition to the photos that shows we were watching the area at least long enough to take those pictures, we have evidence that two different bodies of experts ranked al-Qa’qa’a as one of the most important Iraqi munitions sites.
According to the Iraqi Survey Group’s Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Vol2 p 72 (79) Iraq kept some secrets about the plant for “fear that the UN would destroy the plant, virtually closing Iraq’s extensive munitions industries.”
And according to the IAEA al-Qa’qa’a was “the main high explosives storage facility in Iraq.”
If one’s willing to assume that the main high explosives storage facility in Iraq was under observation why would the Pentagon choose to release these nearly entirely unrelated and decidedly uninformative photos instead of photos showing trucks moving the HMX?
If one’s willing to assume that the main high explosives storage facility in Iraq was not under observation then one has to wonder, “Why the hell not?”
Consider also the fact that rather than gainsay the reports that these items were removed on our watch in Iraq, there were merely some non-denials and negative pregnant statements such as the declassified photo that was released for some inexplicable reason, and Rumsfeld’s vigorous, “The idea it was suddenly looted and moved out, all of these tons of equipment, I think is at least debatable.” When this is combined with Major Pearson’s inability to address specific issues of concern, it renders an odd and suspicious picture of the guys in charge. Either, despite being the people with access to some of the most detailed info in the world re US actions in Iraq, they really don’t know, or they do know and are trying to artfully dodge the issue.
(Why didn’t they get the guys in Pearson’s outfit who actually were the explosive ordnance disposal or technical intelligence guys to come and explain what exactly they destroyed rather than the unit’s ammunition logistics management guy who could only provide vague answers to specific questions?)
If Team Bush had just come out originally and said,
“Yeah, there’s some stuff that’s gone missing. We’ve secured 2/3 of what’s here in Iraq and we may have lost this fraction that’s less than 1% of what we’ve secured. And less than 1% of what we have not secured. We don’t know what has happened to it yet, but we’re looking into it,”
the whole issue would’ve been dead by that Tues am.
However, once the Admin referenced a news report (instead of official US military reports or other official what-have-yous) as a way of implying (not stating mind you) that the stuff wasn’t there when we took control of the area, that was like blood in the water. Then the hullabaloo over the release of nearly unrelated photos and the presentation of nearly unrelated commentary was like a little chum thrown into the water as well. (Not to mention the Russian angle promulgated by Mr. Shaw in the Acquisitions department whose authority to speak to the issue was unclear*.)
The attempts to imply without specifically asserting explanations other than the one actually being discussed make it look fishy.
There’s some shenanigans afoot here, but that’s not it.
You’ve been fooled into believeing unfactual things
For further insight examine items found here
Of particular note:
Fate of Missing Iraq Weapons Unresolved
John J. Lumpkin | Posted on Fri, Oct. 29, 2004
© Associated Press
… by military estimates, a minimum of 250,000 more tons remain unaccounted for.
Maj. Austin Pearson said his team removed the 250 tons of plastic explosives and other munitions on April 13, 2003 …
… those munitions were not located under the seal of the [IAEA]- as the missing high-grade explosives had been. … Di Rita could not … say … they were part of the missing 377 tons.
… March 15, 2003 - five days before the war started - and closes in late May, when a U.S. weapons inspection team declared the depot stripped and looted.
… April 13, Pearson’s ordnance-disposal team arrived and took 250 tons of munitions out and later destroyed them.
… April 18 … television crew … shot a videotape … which shows what appeared to be high explosives still in barrels and bearing the markings of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
“… of the estimated 650,000 to 1 million tons of explosives, artillery shells, aviation bombs and other ammunition that were in Iraq. To date, we’ve secured somehere around 450, 000 tons of explosives.”[/INDENT]
Anyway, I’m completely serious about your relationship with politicians and the news media.
FYI, politican’s are not the most honest groups of people.
*****U.S. Military Checks Satellite Images for Clues About Missing Explosives
“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.