Posted on 10/27/2004 4:18:45 PM PDT by hadrian
I looked to see if anyone else had posted this - I apologize if I missed it - about 8 minutes into ABC World News Tonight, Martha Radditz ended up her report on the missing explosives with words to this effect:
Peter, late breaking information from IAEA is that when they last inspected the Al QAQaa facility in (January? March?) 2003, there were not 180 tons of high explosives, but only 3 tons.
She did qualify that I think by stating a particular type of high explosive - either MX(?) or the other of the two types, but whatever it was, sounds like there might have been a lot less left to be "missing" at any time the US forces could have been there.
Putting my tin foil hat on for a moment -- over the weekend word leaked of a surprise story about Kerry to be released on Monday. Then this story -- which was first scheduled for a week later -- gets dusted off a week early and released. Is it possible that Mr. Rove leaked word of a surprise (which turned out to be minor) in order to coax this story out first when there would be time to get the truth out? Ah . . . I'm sure someone else has brought that up . . . taking the hat off now :-)
This is relevant, because the IAEA does not know how much they actually moved.
On their last check, they did not go into the bunkers, they only checked the seals and took Saddam's word.
All these huge tonnage numbers are based on the January count, not the amount remaining after the request to move. They never recounted the stuff and have no leg to stand on in this regard.
It is all BS from the IAEA and we know why.(Oil for bribes)
anyone have verification of this?
Possibly Semtex, of Czech manufacture.
when are they going to get their story right? before they told the UN that 30 tons were missing, in January 2003
So the IAEA "misplaced" 177 tons of high explosives before they even left Iraq? LOL!!
Oh, right Senator, it's the troops fault they couldn't guard what the U.N. allowed to be lifted before the war started.
Good job with the thread compilation.
Thanks for posting.
Bookmarked.
Link?
WAIT A MINUTE: Is this the reason the IAEA is changing their story -- because they now realize that removing 180 tons sounds ridiculous, but that 3 tons could be "looted" with just a few trucks?
In the meantime, the DU and Arafat are running neck and neck in the coma department.
Can someone find a transcript or a news story, so we can start mailing it out to bloggers/Drudge? Thanks.
I agree. fifi, can you comment further?
First of all, I'm not going to believe this story at all until we get more confirmation.
But for those of you who are wondering why the number is 180 here instead of the 380 that is often quoted---that would, I believe, be the difference between metric tons and "standard" tons: 1 metric ton = 1000 kilograms = 2200 pounds.
At least I think so.
Doesn't sound so crazy to me, but instead of Rove, maybe they get their info from reading Free Republic.
"380 TONS OF EXPLOSIVES JUST BLEW UP IN KERRY'S DROOPING FACE!!!"
Shakespeare said it best:
"For 'tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petard: and 't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines,
And blow them at the moon"
Nah, I think it's entirely possible Rove could have gotten word in advance of the intended "surprise" and forced it to blow up while they could have time to respond to it.
The reason weekend surprises are so effective is that some of our alternative media takes those couple of days off, and normal conservatives are out with their families and at Church unavailable to counter attack the charges while they simmer.
Exactly if we can't verify and document it's of little help
a THREE TON dud
Drudge mentioned, on his Sunday night radio program, the same thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.