Bush: In Deep Caca Over Al QaQaa

The Bush administration is in Deep Caca over Al Qaqaa. Minnesota TV station KSTP has produced what seems to be the smoking gun video… or to use Condi’s phraseology, the mushroom cloud video.

Turns out that the station’s embedded reporters arrived at Al Qaqaa on April 18 2003, nine days after the fall of Baghdad. And the footage shot at the moment clearly shows U.S. troops breaking the seal that had been earlier placed on a bunker door. Inside that bunker, barrel after barrel of the now missing 700,000 pounds of explosives – the kind used as hyper-powerful bombs and even nuclear detonators.

KSTP’s story devastates the Pentagon's unsubstantiated suggestion issued earlier Thursday that the explosives might have been looted before U.S. troops invaded Baghdad.

No.

Not only did the troops filmed by KSTP find the clearly marked explosives that had been under seal.. but then they up and left, abandoning the material to anyone who might happen along.

Friday morning’s L.A. Times has a sharp piece on the new evidence… though whatever editor wrote the sub-headline has it ass-backwards:

News Video Is at Center of Storm Over Iraq Explosives
Reporters taped troops apparently finding munitions. Pentagon photo implies otherwise.

In reality, it’s the reporter’s video that trumps the Pentagon photo—a photo that in light of the new evidence proves absolutely nothing.

The Times quotes the Bush administration’s former chief weapons inspector from an earlier appearance on CNN in which he, simply, blew up the administration cover story:

Former top U.S. weapons hunter David Kay said the video, which showed soldiers going through the explosives as well as the apparent IAEA seal on the door, was strong evidence that the weapons were still in at least one bunker weeks after the start of the war. The IAEA had placed seals on nine bunkers in the complex.

"The seal was broken [by U.S. troops] and, quite frankly, to me the most frightening thing is not only is the seal broken and the lock broken, but the soldiers left after opening it up," Kay said on CNN. "You have to provide security."

The missing Al Qaqaa cache was a fraction of the problem, Kay said. "Iraq is awash with tens of thousands of tons of explosives right now in the hands of insurgents because we did not provide the security when we took over the country."

Kay said Al Qaqaa "was one of the most well-documented explosives sites in all of Iraq."

...U.S. officials were warned about safeguarding Al Qaqaa soon after the assault began. Alarmed by the rampant looting of Iraqi's main nuclear site, Tuwaitha, IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei wrote an internal memo about the potential "explosives bonanza" available to terrorists, which was passed along to U.S. officials.

"We put it to the U.S. mission in Vienna in April" of 2003, said Jacques Baute, the IAEA's chief inspector for Iraq. "We didn't hear anything back."

One year later, Iraqi interim officials say they warned coalition head L. Paul Bremer III that Al Qaqaa had probably been looted after the invasion.

This story of staggering incompetence by the Bushies will wash through the Friday and even the weekend news cycle.

I’m skeptical, however, as to what it will mean politically. As this story has evolved over the last few days, it seems whatever momentum there might be in this race has shifted once again toward George W. Bush. There’s plenty to dislike about the President and plenty reason to oppose him, heaven knows. But John Kerry’s failure to ignite significant excitement among those outside the chattering class should not be underestimated.

(photo: a still from KSTP's video clearly showing the wax seal of the IAEA on a bunker door at Al QaQaa on April 18, 2003).

UPDATE: Thanks to Juan Cole here's a detailed transcript of the discussion Thursday ngiht between former CIA weapons inspector David Kay and CNN's Aaron Brown. It's rather definitive:

BROWN: I don't know how better to do this than to show you some pictures, have you explain to me what they are or are not, OK? First, I'll just call it the seal and tell me if this is an IAEA seal on that bunker at that munitions dump.

KAY: Aaron, as about as certain as I can be looking at a picture, not physically holding it, which obviously I would have preferred to have been there, that's an IAEA seal. I've never seen anything else in Iraq in about 15 years of being in Iraq and around Iraq that was other than an IAEA seal of that shape.

BROWN: And was there anything else at the facility that would have been under IAEA seal?

KAY: Absolutely nothing. It was he HMX, RDX, the two high explosives.

BROWN: OK. Now, I want to take a look at the barrels here for a second and you can tell me what they tell you. They obviously to us just show us a bunch of barrels. You'll see it somewhat differently.

KAY: Well, it's interesting. There were three foreign suppliers to Iraq of this explosive in the 1980s. One of them used barrels like this and inside the barrel is a bag. HMX is in powdered 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 Qa Qaa that was in that form.

BROWN: Let me ask you then, David, the question I asked Jamie. In regard to the dispute about whether that stuff was there when the Americans arrived, is it game, set, match? Is that part of the argument now over?

KAY: 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.

There was HMX, RDX in there. The seal was broken and quite frankly to me the most frightening thing is not only is the seal broken and the lock broken but the soldiers left after opening it up. I mean to rephrase the so-called (UNINTELLIGIBLE) rule if you open an arms bunker, you own it. You have to provide security.

BROWN: That raises a number of questions. Let me throw out one. It suggests that maybe they just didn't know what they had.

KAY: I think quite likely they didn't know they had HMX, which speaks to the lack of intelligence given troops moving through that area but they certainly knew they had explosives.

And to put this in context, I think it's important this loss of 360 tons but Iraq is awash with tens of thousands of tons of explosives right now in the hands of insurgents because we did not provide the security when we took over the country.

BROWN: Could you -- I'm trying to stay out of the realm of politics.

KAY: So am I. BROWN: I'm not sure you can necessarily. I know. It's a little tricky here but is there any reason not to have anticipated the fact that there would be bunkers like this, explosives like this and a need to secure them?

KAY: Absolutely not. For example, al Qa Qaa was a site of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) super gun project. It was a team of mine that discovered the HMX originally in 1991. That was one of the most well documented explosive sites in all of Iraq. The other 80 or so major ammunition storage points were also well documented

Comments

[steve]

The pro-occupation bloggers are in classic states of denial, running out of talking points.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/international/middleeast/28bomb.html

Speaking of Eyerak, driving along 94E back into MPLS, I saw a sign hanging from a bridge that crosses the thruway that said, "Iraq WAR Paytoll Stop Ahead: Toll $ 2,546"

", it seems whatever momentum there might be in this race has shifted once again toward George W. Bush"

Really?
"According to the Herald poll, done by Zogby International, Kerry is positioned to win Miami-Dade by anywhere from 90,000 to 100,000 votes.

A margin that large in Florida's most populous county would be hard for Bush to make up across the rest of the state [...]"

[too many steves]

Definitive? Really? Seems to be a lot of deductive reasoning and cognitive leaping going on. For an alternate, and skeptical, review of what we "know", go here:

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/

and read the post dated Friday, October 29, 2004 titled "The Return of the RDX".

As for the political impact, this is along the lines of: "I can't say I know what happened but I think you should ask my opponent about his whereabouts on August 5th".

Does The New Yorker still hold to their assertion that the Bushies have run the dirtiest campaign and that Kerry is only responding and by yelling "he started it!"? Kerry sure is getting lots of help from the MSM.

[recoveringX-repub]

THUS SPAKE DUBYA (without the tiniest hint of irony -- or shame):

"A president needs to get all the facts before jumping to politically motivated conclusions"

[GMRoper]

Charge, counter-charge, charge, counter-charge!

We still don't know what if anything happened at Al QaQaa, information says as little as three tons as much as 380+ tons.

The Bushies did it... Oh, a PFC or Sgt. called bush and said "Hey, Mr. Prez, we found this stuff what do we do with it. To which Bush(or bushies) said "Oh, just leave it, it's probably nothing."

How tiresome, and yet, it's the stuff of Dreams for the Kerry-ites. They can't show their man has anything, so at least show that the bushies are clueless. Hmm, kinda clueless themselves if you will be honest about it.

Oh, and steve, posting a link to the NYTimes is silly, we all know where they stand and if you think them "non-partisan" then you think the rest of us are shallow.

[GMRoper]

"|" writes, ""According to the Herald poll, done by Zogby International, Kerry is positioned to win Miami-Dade by anywhere from 90,000 to 100,000 votes."

But RCP poll has Bush ahead in all but two (LATimes and Reuters/Zogby) and those two show a tie the three way (Bush/Kerry/Nader.)

in the Head to Head, Bush is UP by 1 point to 6 points, with the 6 point lead according to CNN/USA/Gallup and even the LATimes has it up by 1 in the head to head catagory.

I'm not worried about a single area such as Miami-Dade.

[recoveringX-repub]

OT: another completely irony-free statement for the books:

"Please do not believe everything you hear and read."

-- Bill O'Reilly, Fox Network, 10/28/04

[silent cal]

I'm taken aback at GMRoper's mind-numbing reaction to the preponderance of evidence on this disturbing development. If I were a psychologist I'd suggest that.... Oh, nevermind.

"Oh, and steve, posting a link to the NYTimes is silly, we all know where they stand and if you think them "non-partisan" then you think the rest of us are shallow."

GM, you are not showing due appreciation to the newspaper that helped Bush sell his marketing campaign of "WMD in IRAQ" before the war. You should not be so harsh on prowar newspapers. I certainly appreciated the NYT hiring a neocon to cover the WMD sales pitch.
On polls, caution there GM, you're talking about national polls, about as relevant to the election outcome as the fact that the Red Sox were down by 3-0. More relevant, and surely you're aware of this I hope, are swing state polls, momentum.

[surly cal]

The unfortunate truth is that this al QaQaa story is just a snapshot in a much larger picture of inexplicably incompetent planning and consistent miscalculation in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

There is also a study using a very credible methodolgy being released by Lancet, the journal of the British medical association, on increases in Iraqi death rates over the past year and a half suggesting that as many as 100,000 people have died as a direct and indirect result of the war, ensuing chaos and terrorism unleashed. There comes a point at which, "But Saddam's gone!" ceases to cut it.

These are the results of a carefully crafted policy by a rather small, identifiable group of people who acted against an enormous amount of counter-evidence and alternative advice. Their reactions even to proof of large and very consequential errors are disturbing, to say the least.

I've racked my brain for some witticism to wrap around this - some light, sarcastic remark to throw it all into frame. It just won't come. Where is the crazed, blistering, irredeemably rude "bucrds" now when we need him ?

[GMRoper]

Silent Cal writes, "I'm taken aback at GMRoper's mind-numbing reaction to the preponderance of evidence on this disturbing development. If I were a psychologist I'd suggest that.... Oh, nevermind."

Cal, that's because you have a closed mind-set when it comes to the "evidence." I on the other hand am waiting to be convinced. That hasn't happened yet and, given when this "information" was originally "discovered" and then when the NYTimes and CBS "conspired" to present it, I have to think that maybe, just maybe it's a lot of BS. It may be true, but we really don't know that yet do we? And until we know for sure, I'm not willing to buy into an "october surprise." If you want to, if the others want to fine. But to me it smacks of desperation. Mind Numbing Reaction indeed!

[loudmouth cal]

I've actually gone to the "belmont club" link suggested by the commenter above and they are crying in the wilderness. They raise questions that have been answered definitively, unless they consider weapons inspector David Kay some kind of shill for Kerry. This answer to why the IDEA was placing seals on non-nuclear explosives is simple and known to anyone who's done even minimal research into the story - the explosives in question are so powerful that they are considered dual use, i.e. they are the explosives used as detonators in actual nuclear weapons and therefore came under IDEA control. And of course Mr. Kay, who's inspections unit initially put this al Qa Qaa site under control back in the nineties, has watched the embedded journalists' tape in question and affirmed that what is seen on the tape is what he saw on the ground in Iraq. Apparently the Belmont Club isn't merely skeptical, it's ill-informed - perhaps deliberately so, to give our friends like the commenter above something to cling to in the final days of a closely fought election.

Give me a bit more time and I swear I'll come up with something ironic or clever.

[silent cal]

"But to me it smacks of desperation."

Indeed...

[GMRoper]

From another website. "If you review the pictures on the KSTP web site, http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=1, that has the ABC video everyone is using you can see a very clear picture of a seal with its number (#144322). The PDF document of the UN inspections available show the numbers of the seals and none of them have that number. Therefore, it is clear that the bunkers that ABC videoed were not the ones that held the HMX the UN inspected."

I'm not sure it's clear, but it is one more interesting piece of the puzzle. Mind Numbing Indeed!

[too many steves]

Come on.

The reports on the amount of stuff ranges from 3 tons to 380 tons. The IAEA was there but no one can say for certain that they inspected the actual contents of the bunkers despite the apparent fact that they put stickers and locks on things. The IAEA would seem to be operating outside the bounds of its charter by inspecting conventional rather than nuclear/WMD weapon sites. No one seems to be able to say whether the contents were RDX, HMX, or some fractional combination of each. There is some question as to the nature and accuracy of the labels on the containers. There are surveillance photos that suggest content relocation activity. There is intelligence that suggests the Russians were involved in helping the Iraqi's move some or all of this stuff to Syria before the war began. Even if 380 tons is right it would represent a very small fraction of the total of 400,000 tons that we have seized and or destroyed.

Now, I'm not saying that this absolves Bush and the Military on the question of proper prosecution of the war, but we are a long way from saying that this is definitive proof of a major screw up.

But what we can say for certain is that the timing of all these reports and revelations is very interesting.

[GMRoper]

Cal, you want to be convinced! And that is OK. Just don't expect everyone to have the same mindset that you do. OK? I am yet to be convinced and when (and if) I am, then I'll scream and shout about it, as I have about other administration screwups. But for damn sure, not until then.

[too many steves]

One other thing, from the transcript above:

"KAY: Aaron, as about as certain as I can be looking at a picture, not physically holding it, which obviously I would have preferred to have been there..."

I would argue that everything he says followin that comment, while respecting his postion and expertise, is speculation not fact.

[GMRoper]

Slightly OT, but connected are the predictions of the winner in the Weekly Standard. What is odd is that some of the conservative writers are predicting a Kerry win. Verrrrry Interrressstink!

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/831ikvkm.asp

[Reg]

Listen to what weapons inspector David Kay said when asked about this by Aaron Brown ...

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.

And then a moment later ...
"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."

Whatever else you can say about him, David Kay knows a thing or two about this subject. And he seems positive.

(I couldn't help but imagine what GMRoper would be saying right now if David Kay were making equally persuasive comments about stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons had they been found. Can anyone honestly imagine GM being equally "skeptical" under that scenario ? And of course the notion that this is all "just politics" is...well, it's just politics and pretty darn shabby, dishonest politics if you ask me. )

[too many steves]

It may not be all politics but the timing sure is interesting. The inspections and reporting of that site happened 18 months ago. There are lots of people who want Bush to lose this election. What reasonable explanation is there to explain this all being released within a week of the election?

[GMRoper]

Surley call writes, "There is also a study using a very credible methodolgy being released by Lancet, the journal of the British medical association, on increases in Iraqi death rates over the past year and a half suggesting that as many as 100,000 people have died as a direct and indirect result of the war, ensuing chaos and terrorism unleashed. There comes a point at which, "But Saddam's gone!" ceases to cut it."

Credible methodology? You have GOT to be KIDDING!
This one is so easy to take down. The following does it easy, with no effort, no sweat.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/102904J.html

[silent cal]

Comparing tons of RDX/HDX lost to tons of disparate weapons destroyed is a false comparison because of the potency of the explosives in question. It is also a fact that huge stores of munitions and weapons in dumps all over Iraq were looted by the ton after the war by God knows who.

This isn't an isolated incident. It's an extreme example - so extreme that the IDEA and the Allawi government sounded an alarm.

Of course, our friends would actually have us believe that because the story is being covered by the New York Times, ABC and CBS it's beneath their consideration and "political". Perhaps this is helps us understand what has come to be known as "the faith-based community."

[GMRoper]

Cal writes, "Perhaps this is helps us understand what has come to be known as "the faith-based community."

Cal, that was cute and I'm not being cute when I said it. It was indeed humorous/ironic/cute.

[Ron]

I'm not opposed to thinking that we might have missed some of the explosives in Iraq. But over at Power Line they've been calculating the storage requirements for the amount that the IAEA claims was lost. The video doesn't show enough barrels. Somebody was also pointing out that the RDX and HMX is stored wet (makes sense to me, lots of enegergetic material is stored and handled under water to desensitize it) so that rules out cardboard drums.

Given the loose handling by the IAEA prior to the invasion, and the amount of US military traffic in the area after the invasion, I have a hard time swallowing this one.

[silent cal]

I find it hard to believe that the same person who rather enthusiastically treated us to polling data based on 900 or so phone calls earlier in the thread provides this particular techcentral link to debunk the Lancet's survey methodology. The point, and the only point, in the link is that a sample of 1000 families with a 95% confidence rate isn't the same thing as absolute proof. In the course of snide remarks about "the left's" inability to do simple math the poster asserts that a 95% confidence rate in polling samples means that there's only a 5% chance it's accurate.

I'm not a social scientist or statistician, so this is all Arabic to me. But the study was actually conducted out of Johns Hopkins medical school. I just have a hunch that researchers who have developed sophisticated epidemiology models over many years might just be more accurate in their methodology than is suggested by a poster at techcentral ("where free markets meet science", whatever that means). You might even say, I have faith.