First, it’s not been established that this was an October Surprise.
Second, no. No, there was never any appreciable implication that the stuff was stolen recently. What set off the controversy were the actions of the Interim Iraqi government’s report to the IAEA.
[INDENT]“The Iraqi ministry attributed this loss to theft and looting due to lack of security.” “They were not clear when it might have been stolen, also they were not clear where it might be. The biggest concern is the threat if these explosives have fallen into the wrong hands.” IAEA spokeswoman, Melissa Fleming[/INDENT]
I can’t really ask you to cite for a dearth of coverage, but I sure would like to.
This is directly at odds with how I remember things. I remember quite a bit of controversy about when the stuiff went missing. Most of it revolved around whether or not the stuff was gone before we got there. I noticed a pronounced tendency for news stories to focus on the ‘when’ of the event. IIRC, The SECDEF himself had a few comments reported as to the ‘when’ of the HMX went missing. It seems, to me, in my memory, that the ‘when’ was one of he biggest deals about the whole affair.
Perhaps we just have different levels of information immersion.
Perhaps they thought it more fit for a weekly news magazine-type show rather than breaking news.
And, IIRC, the our Iraqi CPA under Bremer was made aware in May.
Perhaps it’s related to why IAEA inspectors continued to be prevented from doing their jobs in Iraq even Hussein was no longer in power.
These are an unusual and unusually powerful type of explosives.
Al-Qa’qa’a was one of the important munitions sites in Iraq.
Well, it also may have been simply a matter of territory. As anyone who has worked for a big organization knows, it is not just one big entity; people tend to have their own turf. As I understand it, the story was being worked on by “60 Minutes” not the regular CBS News staff.
At any rate, I agree with the decision by the New York Times to break it earlier than 60 Minutes was planning to. But, like I said, if the Administration had wanted to have the story break not too close to the election, they should have released it themselves earlier. When you are trying to cover something up, I don’t think you have too strong grounds to complain about the story breaking later rather than sooner. Some might even call it “chutzpah”!
Thank you for your considered response. I think you cleared up most of my questions.
I would like to point out, however, that this does not go without saying. At least not around here. Notice jshore’s response to me above. Implying that since the only video we have is of US forces breaking IAEA seals that Iraqis could not have. You and I both know that he knows better, and yet this implication is still offered.
Clearly the press conference and the photo were released to influence public opinion.
Well, don’t go too far, I listend to that press conference. They were quite careful to say exactly what they said. I did not see the release of the photos, so I am willing to believe some deception may have played a part. But if you think that most people would have only gotten:
1)The pentagon held a press conference to discuss the destruction of Iraqi munitions some of which came from the site which held the “missing” munitions in question.
2)Therefore we have almost certainly destroyed most of the munitions in question.
The you have a low opinion indeed of the public’s ability to hear what is said. Forgive me, but it seems that in your zeal to find more examples of “not-lies”* you may be jumping the gun just a bit. Perhaps I do not understand the mechanisms by which a true statement implies an untrue one, and becomes an improper belief in the listener.
I did not get this from the press conference. I took that phrase to mean that the different units which were there had different reasons to be. For instance, he specifically said that the first US units to arrive occupied the facility specifically because it was occupied by hostile Iraqis the US units “wanted to get”. The next unit there simply stopped there because it was a convenient place to stop on their way to Bagdad. I think he was trying to stay away from claiming that the US occupied the facility for the purposes of securing the arms there, since several units who occupied it clearly did not have that purpose.
Fari enough.
Now now, lets not get snippy about it.
I don’t believe I have made that sort of aspertion on the idea that the US simply allowed 200 plus tons of high explosives to walk away.
Yes, but he was not refering to stuff that was only in boxes. He was refereing to boxes as a unit of measuring how much material was on his trucks. He explained a little later (while discussing why his trucks were not filled to capacity) that the “palletized boxes” were not of uniform size and did not necessarily fill up the trucks to capacity. I think it is not possible to conclude that no barels were present in the munitions which the Major crated and destroyed.
I think Major Pearson expressed considerable expertise in just this area. Listen to his explanation of what types of explosives he moved and how they were dealt with. He explicitly talks about using different methods of destruction depending on the material.
Since when does one go around making silly inferences based on things I said and then claiming that I implied them. I implied nothing of the sort. All I did was point out that the only actual evidence we have of seals being broken was by the U.S. troops. What I meant to inply is that thus inventing these scenarios where the Iraqis broke the seals and moved them outside is pure speculation. (It is also speculation for which there is at least some countervailing evidence. I.e., we know for a fact that there were still buildings with the seals that contained the explosives on April 18th…Plus, we have no reports…or video…from any of the troops of there being explosives sitting outside of the buildings. This doesn’t mean it is impossible that the Iraqis did this at all. But, it does make it complete idle speculation at best, plus it doesn’t explain what happened to that portion [which may be all] of the explosives that were in fact still sealed when the video was taken on April 18th…)
Well, that is sort of amusing coming from someone who just concluded from my quip about how the only actual physical evidence we have of any IAEA seals being broken is by Americans that I was implying that it was impossible that any of the IAEA seals could have been broken by the Iraqis.
But, what, pray tell, was that news conference about if not an attempt by the administration to try to plant in people’s mind the idea that most if not all of the explosives in question may actually have been destroyed by us rather than looted by the Iraqis? And, we have evidence provided directly from the OP that it may have worked quite effectively…And, I’d say most posters on the StraightDope are better informed than the public at large. [Do I have to quote the PIPA poll again. ]
And, yet, they don’t seem to have kept any records of what the material was that they had to destroy! Do you remember the days when lack of records of destruction of materials was taken as a strong assumption of guilt!?! Boy, I am glad we are long past that now that issues like war and peace no longer hang in the balance!
Maybe not from the press conference itself, but most people don’t watch the press conference or read the transcript. Listening to some am Talk Radio and reading the OP lead me to believe that it is not uncommon to have arrived at the conclusion that the press conference told us that US had destroyed some (or all) of the explosives in question.
As explicit and clearly as the facts were stated, griffen2 thought “…American troops destroyed 250 of the 377 tons of “missing” explosives.”
Why is that?
Somehow, talking about some mostly unrelated events and even making statements to the contrary were able to become transmogrified into the apparently not uncommon idea that Major Pearson definitely destroyed all or part of the missing explosives in question.
How did these true and specifically vague statements come to be construed as their opposite?
Perhaps griffen2 will care to enlighten us?
griffen2,
How did you reach your conclusion that the news article about Major Pearson’s press conference w/ Di Rita meant “…American troops destroyed 250 of the 377 tons of “missing” explosives?” Surely you drew on more sources than just the particular article that you cited in that sentence, yes?
I’m of the opinion, that data conveyed via context and other elements that are not strictly verbal, as well as carefully constructed diction played key parts in leading to griffen2’s erroneous conclusion. The press conference was designed to look like a rebuttal. The tone of the conference and the choice of Mr Di Rita’s opening statements imply that he’s there to set the record straight about the missing explosives when in fact, the pres conference is with someone who doesn’t know about the explosives in question to talk about some thing other than explosives in question.
The conference and the photo release and probably at least a dozen other things were part of an effort to generate reactions similar to griffen2’s.
By soldiers manning a military munitions complex I meant the Iraqi forces, not us. Di Rita talks of the Iraqi military forces, the “Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard, Republican Guard and others”, as being at the Iraqi military installation “for whatever reasons.”
I’m just saying. With various substitutions for the monkeys this was suggested by some of us Americans as a possibility.
I’m sure that he’s quite competent at what he does. Note that he feels the need to qualify even the vague answer that he does give in this instance by reminding the audience of what his qualifications are not.
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.
