Uh Bill maybe you can help me, I've lost count, is this the 18th or 19th different explanation as to what happened to the explosives?

I like Juan Cole's commentary of the Pentagon spin session:

DiRita kept talking about RDX plastic explosives, when the real issue is what happened to the HMX, which is the stuff that can be used to detonate an atomic bomb. At one point DiRita insisted that the Pentagon refers to it all as RDX and doesn't distinguish HMX (!) He brought a poor US army major, Austin Pearson, out to talk about how his unit had destroyed over 200 tons Iraqi munitions, including tons of stuff from al-Qaqaa.

But if DiRita thought that this officer would clear the whole thing up, he was clearly disappointed. The major said explicitly that he had not seen any seals of the International Atomic Energy Commission, which means that he cannot testify that his unit destroyed the HMX. Then he was asked if insurgents could have carried off 150 tons of that stuff in a short period of time as a practical matter. He replied that it seems like a lot, but in fact it could be done really quickly.

Then he let it slip that his unit was at al-Qaqaa on April 13, before the KSTP video was shot of US soldiers examining HMX there. So Pearson's unit could not have removed all the HMX at that time. Since he didn't see IAEA seals, it seems likely that his unit didn't remove any HMX.

No one doubts that the US military has blown up enormous amounts of Iraqi ordnance. The point is that they have also not blown up enormous amounts of Iraqi ordnance, and that the country's 80 major arms depots have gone on being looted throughout the US occupation because the military was not given enough troops by Bush to guard the depots.

Conclusion: The DiRita performance today was embarrassing to Bush. His Pentagon spokesman doesn't know the difference between RDX and HMX and he hasn't debriefed his chief witness, Maj. Pearson, so as to avoid being blindsided when the major says he never saw IAEA seals, that looters could have carted off tons of HMX quickly and easily, and that his unit was at al-Qaqaa before the date of the damning KSTP video!

Posted by: TomJ at October 29, 2004 2:11 PM

"the KSTP video was shot of US soldiers examining HMX there"

Last I heard there was considerable doubt as to whether what they were looking at was HMX.

"MICHAEL LYSOBEY, FORMER WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Well, the materials at that site or the materials that I saw in the video are not necessarily the HMX, which is the high explosive used in a nuclear implosion device.

What we saw in the tape were a bunch of barrels and a bunch of explosive caps. Al Qa Qaa is an explosives facility. So that's what we'd expect to see. The explosives that we're worried about, we don't know. This isn't definitive proof that those explosives were there."

Did I miss something?

Posted by: Elisa at October 29, 2004 2:34 PM

Yes Elisa you did miss something:

In an interview by Aaron Brown of weapons inspector David Kay, the following exchange took place:

AB: Was there anything else at the facility that would have been under IAEA seal?
DK: Absolutely nothing. It was the HMX, RDX, the two high explosives.

David Kay went on to say:

HMX is in powder form because you actually use it to shape a spherical lens that is used to create the triggering device for nuclear weapons. And particularly on the videotape, which is actually better than the still photos, as the soldier dips into it, that's either HMX or RDX. I don't know of anything else in al Qaqaa that was in that form.

He continued:

Well, at least with regard to this one bunker and the film shows one seal, one bunker, one group of soldiers going through and there were others there that were sealed, with this one, I think it is game, set and match.

Further, weapons inspector David Albright told ABC:

"I talked to a former inspector who's a colleague of mine, and he confirmed that, indeed, these pictures look just like what he remembers seeing inside those bunkers."

"The seal's critical. The fact that there's a photo of what looks like an IAEA seal means that what's behind those doors is HMX," Albright said.

Posted by: Tomj at October 29, 2004 2:51 PM

Do you know what the real kicker in all of this is? We're discussing what happened to Saddam's HMX. HMX is used for the detonation of nuclear weapons. It is a component of WMD. Ergo, it is proof that Saddam indeed was in possession of at least some of the components of WMD, in violation of UN Res. 1441, creating legitimate cause of action for military action and, oh by the way, proving Bush was right when he said Saddam represented a "gathering danger" as regards his WMD program.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at October 29, 2004 3:48 PM

Bill, you're acting like we never knew about the HMX at Al QaQaa! Have you been paying attention at all? The HMX was under IAEA seal and the Kay Report and Duffler Reports show conclusively that Saddam's nuclear program had been defunct for years. The definition of WMD, at least as I understand it, is chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and HMX is none of those. But why am I wasting my time? After watching the various shrill conservative pundits last night attempt to explain away the Al QaQaa scandal with distortion and sometimes outright lies, I suppose I should admit to myself that Bush's conservative base will buy any lame story his cronies cook up.

Posted by: TomJ at October 29, 2004 4:12 PM

Yes, I still don't see how this "missing weapons" thing is a big deal.

Clearly, they were a figment of the IAEA's imagination. And even if these things did somehow exist, they weren't EVER going to be used.

Beacuase from what I've read in the newspapers, EVERYBODY knows Saddam was not a threat to the US, and had no weapons of mass destruction, and had no desire to continue his nuclear weapons program.

[/sarcasm]

Posted by: KMan at October 29, 2004 4:16 PM

Cordesmann points out that al Qaqaa represents just 0.06% of Iraq's total arsenal.

In 2005, we'll have round-the-clock coverage trying to figure out what happened to the other 99.94% of the fourth largest arsenal in the world.

In the unlikely event that Bush wins reelection, there's a very good chance that "incompetence" and "Republican" will become synonymous for years to come.

On the other hand, if enough conservatives vote for Kerry and keep him hawkish (but intelligent) on the WOT, that won't happen and we'll have a much more competent government.

Posted by: The Lonewacko Blog at October 29, 2004 5:01 PM

In 2005, we'll have round-the-clock coverage trying to figure out what happened to the other 99.94% of the fourth largest arsenal in the world.
It was scattered throughout the country by Saddam. Didn't you listen to the press conference? The major talked about finding ammunition built into the walls of houses and such. You display your ignorance and bias by assuming that such a thing would be Bush's fault.

Posted by: Big Dog at October 29, 2004 5:33 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments:

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):