Kerry's UN Screwed Up Al-Qaqaa (Iraq weapons - explosives)("MUST READ: Full of FACTS)

There's a theory out there that says the more you talk about it, the more it keeps it front and center and it doesn't really persuade anybody. But sorry, I can't look at it that way, folks. This is an outrage. It's an attempt to impact the election, and at the root of it is the United Nations, and particularly Mohammed ElBaradei and it gives rise to the question of, is there any collaboration between the Kerry campaign and the UN on this? Also we have basically an endorsement of Senator Kerry from insurgent terrorists in Iraq. I'm not making this up. These guys, I've got the news story here, they're all excited that Kerry might win because it means the U.S. will get out of Iraq, and there's a number of terrorists quoted and Middle Eastern intellectuals. So we'll get to all of that as the program unfolds today. But from the New York Sun: Urgent Warning on Iraqi Cache Issued in 1995.

"Nine years ago, U.N. weapons inspectors urgently called on the International Atomic Energy Agency to demolish powerful plastic explosives in a facility that Iraq's interim government said this month was looted due to poor security. The chief American weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, told The New York Sun yesterday that in 1995, when he was a member of the U.N. inspections team in Iraq, he urged the United Nations' atomic watchdog to remove tons of explosives that have since been declared missing. Mr. Duelfer said he was rebuffed at the time by the Vienna-based agency because its officials were not convinced the presence of the HMX, RDX, and PETN explosives was directly related to Saddam Hussein's programs to amass weapons of mass destruction."

Now, imagine that, in 1995 Charles Duelfer asks the International Atomic Agency, whatever it is, it's a tongue twister for me, the International Atomic Energy Agency to get rid of this stuff, and the IAEA said, ah, no, this stuff, we don't need to get rid of this stuff, it's not part of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. If you listen to John Kerry today it may as well be, if you read the New York Times this stuff is the most deadly stuff ever known to exist in the world, folks. We're acting like literal nuclear weapons have been stolen by people.

The level of hysteria and panic over this is exceeded only by the collusion between big media and the UN to pull this off, and yet back in '95 Duelfer tells the Mohammed ElBaradei group -- although he's not there then -- to get rid of the stuff, said, ah, naw, it's not that big a deal. "By e-mail, Mr. Duelfer wrote the Sun, 'The policy was if acquired for the WMD program and used for it, it should be subject for destruction. The HMX was just that. Nevertheless the IAEA decided to let Iraq keep the stuff, like they needed more explosives.'" The IAEA allowed Saddam to keep the HMX, the RDX, and the PET and explosives because they didn't think it had anything to do with weapons of mass destruction. So how do we get all these stories today that we got nuclear triggers as part of the things that have been stolen and all these detonators and all these munitions. Duelfer told the IAEA to get rid of this in 1995 and they ignore it.

Now, something about this. None of this is jiving with the way the New York Times is reporting this story. "In 1995, Mr. ElBaradei was an assistant director of the the atomic-energy agency for external relations. His boss, Hans Blix, eventually took over the U.N. inspections team that was on the ground in Iraq before the war. Mr. Blix argued, in a book published after his retirement, that Iraq lacked the weapons programs American and European intelligence said it had kept concealed. Mr. Duelfer came to a similar conclusion, although he stressed in his report that Mr. Hussein had the intent to restart those programs."

So here's Blix in the thick of this along with ElBaradei back in 1995 and even as recently as a couple years ago when Blix's book on all this came out. This stuff was not that big a deal. It couldn't be used for weapons of mass destruction, but in 1995, nevertheless, it was ordered to be destroyed, and the UN said no. "After a behind-the-scenes battle inside the State Department this summer, the Bush administration opted to reject Mr. ElBaradei's bid for a third term as director general of the atomic energy agency. At the time, Washington was collecting intelligence - disputed by some agencies - that Mr. ElBaradei was providing advice to Iran on how to avoid sanction from his organization for its previously undisclosed uranium enrichment programs."

Now, let's take a look at this ElBaradei guy. On his watch, India and Pakistan get to the brink of nuclear detonation. On his watch, Libya gets away with a nuclear weapons program that nobody knows they have. On his watch, the Iranians continue to build a nuclear weapons program and nothing's been done about it, and now, within the past three months, it has been learned that the United States hopes to get rid of Mr. ElBaradei and replace him at the Atomic Energy Agency because they collected intelligence that he was providing advice to Iran on how to avoid sanctions from his organization for its uranium enrichment program, and this is the guy that is largely closely tied to the New York Times story that is obviously a fraudulent story and is misleading and is designed to impact the outcome of an election. Mohammed ElBaradei, I don't think this guy has ever been a real friend of America, but if this is true that he's helping Iran avoid sanctions and avoid discovery of its uranium enrichment program, ladies and gentlemen, this is serious stuff, and this is John Kerry's agency. This is the place John Kerry wants to go, this is the place John Kerry will not criticize, these are the things John Kerry knows he will not criticize. He will not lift a voice or a finger in criticism of the United Nations, but, boy, let the United States come under his glance, and he will criticize and do it happily. He will always rush to blame America first, exonerate his prestigious UN.

Newsmax has gone back in time to their archives. Get this. On February 15th, 2003, the New York Times reported on an address to the United Nations Security Council by Mohammed ElBaradei, the UN's chief nuclear watchdog "covered extensively" by the New York Times ElBaradei shared his concern about the removal of high explosives from facilities like Al Qaqaa. He said, "We have also continued to investigate the relocation and consumption of the high explosives HMX," ElBaradei explained a month before the invasion. As I reported earlier, Iraq has declared that 32 tons of the HMX previously under IAEA seals had been transferred for use in the production of industrial explosives, primarily to cement plants as a booster for explosives in quarrying. ElBaradei noted that Saddam's government had even confirmed the movement of the HMX. In quotes picked up by The Times 21 months ago.

So the New York Times itself reported back in February of 2003 that ElBaradei himself reported on the movement of HMX inside Iraq and that all of these containers had seals, which Dana Lewis said when he got into the Al Qaqaa facility didn't see any seals, didn't see any UN IAEA seals, meaning they had been inspected and tagged which means the stuff was long gone before anybody wearing a United States uniform got there. And the New York Times knows it and wait till you hear a CBS story from about this time, they knew it, too. They ignore their own archives. They ignore what they have all previously reported themselves in order to shape this news story to make it appear as though these weapons went missing yesterday or last week or last month, under the watchful eye of the United States, why, this is amazing this stuff got looted while we're there, Bush is just incompetent.

CBSNews.com, from their archives, near Baghdad, April 4th, 2003. This is a week before April 10th. April the 10th, remember, that's when the 101st Airborne went into Al Qaqaa. That's where Dana Lewis was with them. This was April 4th. "U.S. troops found thousands of boxes of white powder, nerve agent antidote and Arabic documents on how to engage in chemical warfare at an industrial site south of Baghdad, but a center U.S. official familiar with testing said the materials were believed to be explosives. Colonel John Peabody, engineer brigade commander, the 3rd Infantry Division, said the materials were found Friday at the Latifia, industrial complex just south of Baghdad. 'It is clearly a suspicious site,' said Peabody. CBS national security correspondent David Martin reports that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction continues at sites where the U.S. thought chemical weapons might be hidden. Although there are no reports of actual weapons being found, there are constant finds of suspicious material. It obviously will take laboratory testing to find out exactly what the powder is." Now, Latifia, is near Al Qaqaa. And this is before Baghdad fell. Baghdad fell on April 9th. We're in there, we're looking around. This is not the necessarily the same stuff but this plant had been bombed by U.S. jets during the Gulf War, the facility had been identified by the International Atomic Energy Agency as a suspected chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons site, UN inspectors had visited the plant at least nine times including as recently as February 18th, 2003.

CBS News yesterday, 'Why GIs Did Not Hunt Explosives'. "The first U.S. military units to reach the Al Qaqaa military installation south of Baghdad after the invasion of Iraq did not have orders to search for some 350 tons of explosives that are now said to be missing. 'We were still in a fight,' said the commander of the U.S. military unit that was first to arrive in the area in an interview with CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. Charles Duelfer, the head of the unit that did the investigation, special unit known as Task Force 75 told CBS News yesterday that he has not received any orders to go looking for the missing explosives and doesn't think he should. 'It's hard for me to get that worked up about it,' said Duelfer in a phone interview from Baghdad, noting that Iraq is awash in hundreds of thousands of tons of explosives."

The point of this story is, I don't have time to read the whole thing because time is vanishing, the point of this story is the UN could have destroyed these weapons, this material, starting from 1995 to the present, and did not do it. After they were asked to do it by Charles Duelfer and suggested that it be done, Hans Blix refused to do it, the International Atomic Energy Agency refused to do it, the UN refused to do it, could have destroyed these explosives, but nobody did. All the way back to 1995. And the fact of the matter is that when our troops get there they were not there, they were not there. The idea that they went missing recently or have been looted is simply a creation of a creative mind-set at the New York Times and CBS to try to give John Kerry something to talk about to close that gap that shows him down 52-39 in an internal poll, all the internal polls, on who is best suited to handle the situation in Iraq.

Now, there's a great piece today at one of our favorite websites here, the American Thinker. This is a piece by Douglas Hanson. It's a pretty long piece. Douglas Hanson is the military affairs correspondent for AmericanThinker.com, but during the summer of 2003 he was the chief of staff of the Ministry of Science and Technology for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.

"The latest slam of the Bush Administration by the combined forces of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the New York Times, CBS, and the Kerry campaign, repeats on old pattern. The leading lights of the legacy media have their own agenda, one that considerably overlaps that of the Kerry forces. But the IAEA is not merely driven by animus towards Bush. That United Nations agency also needs to cover up its own ineffectiveness and incompetence by shifting attention and blame to the Bush Administration, while waiting for a more congenial President of the United States to take office, one who won’t be tempted to investigate its numerous inadequacies, nor pursue the investigations of the criminality within its parent. The 'disappearing explosives' incident, in other words, is simply the latest firefight between the US and the IAEA over the UN’s complete and utter failure to enforce the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) with the nations of the Axis of Evil.

"Iraq is essentially one big ammo dump. The collection and destruction of all of Saddam’s munitions are proceeding apace under the occupation. So far almost 248,000 tons of ammo have been destroyed or captured, out of an estimated 600,000 tons. This is no small feat. Before the war and during the initial occupation, it was thought Iraq’s munitions were scattered among ammo storage dumps numbering over 130 sites. However, by June of this year, Charles Duelfer and the Iraqi Survey Group (ISG) had determined that there were approximately 8,700 ammo dumps in Iraq!" And we are talking about one of them today.

This is a long piece. I haven't time to finish it here before we have to go to the break. But the central point, let me just read you the last graph. "Not only are the NYT, and apparently CBS News (again!), attempting to influence a US Presidential election, they have become the public relations firm of a corrupt UN and its nuclear inspection agency that allowed a madman to keep materials and equipment in violation of a treaty that the UN was duty-bound to enforce."

This buttresses the story that goes back to 1985 that the IAEA refused to destroy the munitions and bombs in the Al Qaqaa dump. Hans Blix refused to do it on the basis this they weren't part of the WMD program. They were just explosives, it wasn't that big a deal, they had more important things to do. Now these things have gone missing and nobody can tell us, not the New York Times, and not CBS, and not Richard Holbrooke, and not John Kerry, and not John Edwards, and not Joe Lockhart, nobody else in the media can tell us when they went missing. All we know is that the United Nations is corrupt, it is incompetent, it is incapable of enforcing its own resolutions as we know, and they are attempting, working with the New York Times and CBS, to shift blame to the Bush administration. And there's old John Kerry willing to criticize his own country at the snap of a finger to jump in and carry the water for them.

Here is the linK to the article, which talks about how Duelfer asked the UN in 1995 to remove those explosives from Iraq and the UN refused.

Urgent Warning on Iraqi Cache Issued in 1995

It shows you the state of the media, when "news" contains lies and bias instead of facts, and you have to put forth the facts and REAL NEWS in "editorials".

Something has become clear about this issue:
Find these missing explosives, and you will also find the WMDs that Saddam supposedly didn't have.

Well thats what I heard initially. Was that the UN was guarding this supply area, and THEY "lost" it (read between the lines: more oil for food supplies).

But now they aren't saying anything about the UN having been there. Did I miss something during my afternoon nap?

4 posted on 10/27/2004 6:41:27 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican (~~~DEMOCRATS ~ We vote twice so you don't have to ~~~)

Dick Morris was just on Hannity and he (and Sean agreed) said that this story is backfiring on Kerry big time and will continue to do so. Dick said that Kerry ran with it and should have just shut his mouth and let the NYT and CBS take it, but because Kerry grabbed it and ran with it, he is doomed. They seem to think this is the end for Kerry. Let us all pray this is really true.

6 posted on 10/27/2004 6:44:10 PM PDT by Jaded ((Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. - Mark Twain))

"All we know is that the United Nations is corrupt, it is incompetent, it is incapable of enforcing its own resolutions as we know, and they are attempting, working with the New York Times and CBS, to shift blame to the Bush administration. And there's old John Kerry willing to criticize his own country at the snap of a finger to jump in and carry the water for them."

And that's the bottom line.

10 posted on 10/27/2004 6:57:00 PM PDT by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed)

This takes the heat off kerry for betraying the POWs and for his dishonorable discharge. Everything stops while we react to the NYTimes's attack on Bush.

But I agree that this is probably damaging to kerry, since it's something that can only worry people about the possibility of terrorism, and I think Bush comes out much stronger on that issue than kerry.

This demonstrates that Kerry is a professional when it comes
to coalition building. In this case we're talking 'the
coalition of the criminal'.

and it gives rise to the question of, is there any collaboration between the Kerry campaign and the UN on this?

I wouldn't be one bit surprised to find Kerry tied into the Oil For Fraud scandal either. Not one bit.

Prairie

13 posted on 10/27/2004 7:09:54 PM PDT by prairiebreeze (It's an honor to recognize those who've served in the United States military. We are grateful.)

Why would America leave the security of it's country up to the United Nations?
All members in Congress and the Senate are killing Americans by supporting the United Nations.

TREASON

Mr. Duelfer wrote the Sun, 'The policy was if acquired for the WMD program and used for it, it should be subject for destruction.

So let me get this straight...If Saddam said the weapons component was not acquired for the WMD program, and he has not yet used the components for WMD, then he can have all the WMD precursors his evil heart desired?

More proof of UN corruption/incompetence, Kerry treason, and media complicity to falsely manipulate the public.

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.