WMDs for the Taking? (Iraqis looted radioactive materials -- enough for Dirty bombs)

MSNBC ^ | May 19, 2003 | Rod Nordland

[FairOpinion]

Al Tuwaitha’s scientists still can’t fully assess the damage; some areas are too badly contaminated to inspect. “I saw empty uranium-oxide barrels lying around, and children playing with them,” says Fadil Mohsen Abed, head of the medical-isotopes department. Stainless-steel uranium canisters had been stolen.

The looted materials could not make a nuclear bomb, but IAEA officials worry that terrorists could build plenty of dirty bombs with some of the isotopes that may have gone missing.

[FairOpinion]

Wait a minute.

1. I thought liberals,the UN, Hans Blicks and the IAEA are telling us that therer are NO WMD-s in Iraq and the justification for war was never proven.

2. IMPORTANT NOTE: IAEA worries that "terrorists could build plenty of dirty bombs" with some of the isotopes that have gone missing. Excuuuuuuse me, and that was not WMD and was NOT considered dangerous when Saddam had all this?!!!!!!!!!! And this isn't enough justification for the war, to get this stuff out of Saddam's hands?

Why did the UN inspectors leave all this stuff in Iraq in Saddam's hands in the first place.

[FairOpinion]

For those who don't like to click on links, here is another small excerpt from the article:

"The well-known Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, about 12 miles south of Baghdad, had nearly two tons of partially enriched uranium, along with significant quantities of highly radioactive medical and industrial isotopes, when International Atomic Energy Agency officials made their last visit in January."

And the UN left it in Saddam's hands and kept telling us how there is no danger.

[aristotleman]

All of what you say is true.

What do we do now though?

It seems that those materials have reached the hands of terrorists anyway. So, what are we to do? We tried our best to secure the darn things, and now they've been stolen. The next step is to be hit by that nasty stuff and we can't do much to prevent it.

Makes me mad.

All of this could've been prevented years ago if Hussein had been removed instead of negotiated with and stroked.

I'm afraid even the war hasn't solved our problems, it might be too late.

[FairOpinion]

"What do we do now though?"

First of all we should demand an answer from the UN inspectors and the IAEA why did they leave this over 2 tons of partially processed uranium and other highly radioactive isotopes in the hands of Saddam, and claimed that they didn't find any WMD. They said they were there and looked at this stuff in January 2003.

Second of all we should declare that by IAEA's own admission that they knew of these highly radioactive materials, which could be used to make multiple dirty bombs, which are now missing, is ABSOLUTE PROOF that Saddam did have WMD, therefore this fully justifies our war.

And of course we should make every effort to recover the radioactive materials.

[Destro]

Radioactive material is not WMD. Your local cancer hospital has radioactive material used to treat patients, etc. The people who looted what they looted have no idea what radiation is or what it can do.

[FairOpinion]

These radioactive isotopes were NOT in Iraqi hospitals, they were at Al Tuwaitha, one of Saddam's nuclear weapons sites. Dirty bombs ARE weapons of mass destruction.

IAEA is now saying that the material is enough for several "plenty of" dirty bombs. That would meet the definition of WMD by anyone.

[EaglesUpForever]

That's what gets me about the nature of the UN standards for Iraqi "disarmament." Still they were hitting us with missiles in Kuwait - "oh, those were allowed." Then we find radioactive materials - "oh, we knew about those." Next we are going to find more Al Queda links, they'll probably tell us they knew about those as well.

I really think a good part of the French and Russian population would love to see America nuked. I think they've made the UN a complete joke for all time and it needs to go the way of the League of Nations.

[Destro]

Fadil Mohsen Abed, head of the medical-isotopes department. Stainless-steel uranium canisters had been stolen.

There were medical use radiation items. Google search to see where we store our hospital radiation items (nuclear power plants are right up there).

[Amerigomag]

Radioactive material is not WMD

Packed around an explosive core and detonated at the site of the world trade center would render a great deal of lower Manhattan uninhabitable for years.

New York City/US would face the choice of bankrupting the city in the demolition/clean up effort or letting the contaminated zone remain unihabited for scores of years. In either case the US financial district would have to be moved out of lower Manhattan.

More accuratley it would be a weapon of mass disruption. Massive economic disruption, which was the original plan.

[FairOpinion]

Repeat: These isotopes were NOT in hospitals, were NOT being used for any medical purposes, they can be called medical isotopes, but they were all AT Al Tuwaitha, which IAEA ignored, even though they knew about them and are enough for "plenty of dirty bombs".

"The well-known Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, about 12 miles south of Baghdad, had nearly two tons of partially enriched uranium, along with significant quantities of highly radioactive medical and industrial isotopes, when International Atomic Energy Agency officials made their last visit in January.

The looted materials could not make a nuclear bomb, but IAEA officials worry that terrorists could build plenty of dirty bombs with some of the isotopes that may have gone missing. "

[FairOpinion]

"Google search to see where we store our hospital radiation items (nuclear power plants are right up there). "
---


WE have not been directed by UN resolutions to NOT possess WMD, which includes nuclear material.

[joesbucks]

There were medical use radiation items. Google search to see where we store our hospital radiation items (nuclear power plants are right up there).

You can't argue with these folks. In the search for anything that could be considered a WMD, they will cling to it as proof.

Look, we'll never know the Iraqi intention for these things. A certain, large and even all of the material could have been used for legit purposes. Now, however, it is in the hands of those who have no idea what it is or worse know the "dirty bomb" angle.

[Bill Davis FR]

bush...unintended consequences...

[Destro]

Let us take your point to its logical conclusion with teh easy shot at Hans Blix. If these were potential WMD items and a WMD site may I ask why we did not send our forces there to secure it from looters? I mean we semt troops to secure the oli ministry building in Baghdad but we had no troops available to secure this WMD site? If this is a WMD site then heads should role for it not being secured as soon as possible--hell it is not even secured by any troops right now!!

Incompetance on display? Court martials and firings are in order?

[FairOpinion]

Sure, everything is the fault of the US, right?

That IS your basic premise, isn't it?

Saddam is not guitly, the UN is not guilty, but we are. We should have left Saddam in charge and how wonderful would everything be, right? Is that your point?

[joesbucks]

Sure, everything is the fault of the US, right?

We should take our lumps when appropriate and stand tall when appropriate. If we surrounded an administration building, but failed to secure a "WMD" site from looters, then yes, we should be taking the blame. A rookie such as I know that you would need not only to take that type of site, it would need secured.

[joesbucks]

If this were an unliked Dem president, we would all be concluding in the same situation about how the Dem lacked knowledge of how to use and run the military.

[Destro]

You can do a real quick look at my posts to see that I am not a supporter of the UN. But your attempt to run from my question and smearing me as you do is telling.

I agree with joesbucks when he said "we'll never know the Iraqi intention for these things. A certain, large and even all of the material could have been used for legit purposes. Now, however, it is in the hands of those who have no idea what it is or worse know the "dirty bomb" angle."

Since you argue that these are WMD items my question and point is both damning and vital to ask: "If these were potential WMD items and a WMD site may I ask why we did not send our forces there to secure it from looters? I mean we semt troops to secure the oli ministry building in Baghdad but we had no troops available to secure this WMD site? If this is a WMD site then heads should role for it not being secured as soon as possible--hell it is not even secured by any troops right now!! Incompetance on display? Court martials and firings are in order?"

You can't scream WMD!!!!! and then not ask--why was it not secured? Still isn't???

[Destro]

see my 18

[FairOpinion]

"Since you argue that these are WMD items my question and point is both damning and vital to ask: "If these were potential WMD items and a WMD site may I ask why we did not send our forces there to secure it from looters?"

---

Interesting that you don't ask THIS quesion:

"If these were KNOWN (by the IAEA, by their own admission) WMD items and a WMD site, why did the UN allowed these materials to stay under Saddam's control?"

[Amerigomag]

Incompetance on display?

I'm scratching my head on that one also. As the marines arrived at the sight (prior to invavding Baghdad) there were reports that they had secured the sight for further investigation. After that report I read no further articles stating that the marines had left because they were relieved.

My guess is that the looting took place after we invaded southern Iraq but before we arrived at the sight on our way to Baghdad.

[Destro]

Um----I thought the whole freaking point about invading Iraq was because the possibility was that the UN was not controling WMD (which was good enough for me)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So in we go fight all the way to Baghdad and....nothing! We secure the empty oil ministry building (it has vital records of oil sales and contracts stored there) yet we send not one platoon to secure this "potential WMD" site!! So who do we fire and courtmartial? The buck stops at Gen. Frank? Rumsfeld?

[Allan]

IAEA officials worry

This may not be the real story.
According to international law
IAEA has jurisdiction over this site
however the US
which believes the IAEA is corrupt
does not want it there.

The reports of looting may have been invented
(or simulated)
to give the US an excuse
to retain control

[Destro]

we don't know--and unlike you have not even read that we sent even a platoon there. In reality the looting started on the day that Saddam vanished.

[Amerigomag]

we don't know--and ...have not even read that we sent even a platoon there

There are numerous articles posted on the matter here on FR.

The marines secured the area on or about April 2 and the US military weapons inspection teams went to work on it or about April 10.

[Destro]

link me if u can

[Destro]

This is what this very MSNBC article says: In the rush to Baghdad, Coalition forces raced past most suspected WMD sites, and looters took over.

So I ask again: So who do we fire and courtmartial?

[Amerigomag]

I'm late to take my mom to dinner but if you search for "Al Tuwaitha" you'll find a good article at the top of the list which contains links to three other articles. Good hunting.

[Destro]

This is also what the MSNBC article says: By the time U.S. troops arrived in early April, armed guards were holding off looters—but the Americans only disarmed the guards, Al Tuwaitha department heads told NEWSWEEK. “We told them, ‘This site is out of control. You have to take care of it’,” says Munther Ibrahim, Al Tuwaitha’s head of plasma physics. “The soldiers said, ‘We are a small group. We cannot take control of this site’.” As soon as the Americans left, looters broke in. The staff fled; when they returned, the containment vaults’ seals had been broken, and radioactive material was everywhere.
U.S. officers say the center had already been ransacked before their troops arrived. They didn’t try to stop the looting, says Colonel Madere, because “there was no directive that said do not allow anyone in and out of this place.” Last week American troops finally went back to secure the site. Al Tuwaitha’s scientists still can’t fully assess the damage; some areas are too badly contaminated to inspect. “I saw empty uranium-oxide barrels lying around, and children playing with them,” says Fadil Mohsen Abed, head of the medical-isotopes department. Stainless-steel uranium canisters had been stolen. Some were later found in local markets and in villagers’ homes. “We saw people using them for milking cows and carrying drinking water,” says Ibrahim.

Be it that the looting began before or after the arrival of American forces -- this statement alone They didn’t try to stop the looting, says Colonel Madere, because “there was no directive that said do not allow anyone in and out of this place.” should be enough to send heads rolling. Why no orders? Who was asleep at the wheel? This is gross negligence and incompetence on the part of the "directive" givers.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Oh, please. We wiped out thousands of terrorists and terrorist wannabes (and the rest know we're damn serious), destroyed delivery systems, weapons caches and retrieved more intel in 6 weeks than the international "experts" did in over 12 years. Saddam was mass-murdering his own people way back in the 80s....and continued through the 90s. We did tremendous good in less than 2 months of this campaign in spite of the leftist press and NGO mischief-makers doing their best daily to undermine our efforts and harm this President - and any other accusation is a da*n lie. To paraphrase "bellygirl" "UN-press, you shut the H* up, We'll save civilization!"

[John H K]

2. IMPORTANT NOTE: IAEA worries that "terrorists could build plenty of dirty bombs" with some of the isotopes that have gone missing. Excuuuuuuse me, and that was not WMD and was NOT considered dangerous when Saddam had all this?!!!!!!!!!! And this isn't enough justification for the war, to get this stuff out of Saddam's hands?

You have the mistaken impression that UN resolutions banned Iraq from having anything radioactive. They did nothing of the sort.

These were all legal materials monitored by the IAEA.

Them's the facts. You may not like them, but none of this material was in violation of anything Iraq agreed to. Their nuclear weapons program was shut down; not their nuclear program.

[Amerigomag]

I also read the article. What bothers me is the two distinctly different versions of events that transpired.

I'm inclined to believe the article you posted for two reasons. It's recent and it has sourced quotes which the earlier articles lack.

If events are as portrayed in this article then in one sense Rummy did no better at stopping the prolifereation of radioactive material after hostilities were over than Schwarzkopf did in allowing armed helicopters. Whether this is a hanging offense for Rummy is not yet defined.

It is safe to say to say that these events are in the best interest of only two parties; the American left and the Islamic fundamentalists.

[FairOpinion]

Hah! The "contradictory" descriptions were all from the same article. That should make you wonder even more. We can't post the entire article, so I posted some excerpts, and Destro posted some others, all from the very same article. You may want to go and read the article, the link is in the original post, no subscription required.

[First Amendment]

My guess is that the looting took place after we invaded southern Iraq but before we arrived at the sight on our way to Baghdad.

I remember reading something to that effect. There was concern that the Marines guarding the place might be exposed to radiation, since some of the stuff was open and some buildings had very high radiation levels. From the articles I read at the time, it seemed clear that any looting or stealing had been done before the US military got there.

[Destro]

For some reason FairOpinion is not connecting with my point:

Regarding the contradictions of the local Iraqi or American versions regarding the looting be it that the looting began before or after the arrival of American forces -- the following is not in doubt:

Like I wrote above - this statement alone They [U.S. forces] didn’t try to stop the looting, says Colonel Madere, because “there was no directive that said do not allow anyone in and out of this place.” should be enough to send heads rolling. Why no orders? Who was asleep at the wheel? This is gross negligence and incompetence on the part of the "directive" givers.

Therefore FairOpinion you must come to the following conclusions--if this was a WMD site (and you said it was in the strongest terms) and hence the fact that it was not secured until it was way too late makes that failure a gross violation of the President's mission statement and hence a gross failure on the part of the Defense Dept to carry out the goal of securing POTENTIAL WMD sites.

PS: Too bad I did not get a chance to read proudmary's statement. My loss I am sure.

[FairOpinion]

"the following is not in doubt:"

---

Actually everything is in doubt. There were similar definite statements made about the museum looting, most of them turned out to be incorrect to total fabrications.

We clearly don't have all the facts, none of us really know what exactly happened and when.

There were earlier stories that the Marines had secured Al Tuwaitha and were guarding it, then these looting stories.

The basic war is over, but the "fog of war" persists. It's pretty definite that there is/was nuclear material at Al Tuwaitha, other than that, there are conflicting stories.

[Destro]

I was talking about the statement of Colonel Madere not being in doubt.

"They [U.S. forces] didn’t try to stop the looting, says Colonel Madere, because “there was no directive that said do not allow anyone in and out of this place.”

Fog of war or old fogey in the Defense Dept?

[FairOpinion]

I don't want to get picky, but how do you know what Col. Madere really said, all we have is what the WP SAID he said, and considering we are just finding out about another "respected publication" like the NY Times admitting that their reporter was fabricating quotes out of whole cloth, I wouldn't make any large bets of the accuracy of this WP article either.

For a little different perspective read the article from the UK Telegraph:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/909795/posts

[Destro]

What Col. Madere said is from this article you posted!! Suddenly the article you posted may be a tissue of lies because you failed to grasp its implications in your search for a cheap score against the stupid UN? The implication being that the Defense Dept dropped "the securing of WMD sites" ball? Col. Madere is on record saying he had no orders to secure that site in this MSNBC article. He is not an unamed source. Good enough for me.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"Radioactive material is not WMD."

Gee, does that mean that a nuclear bomb is not a WMD? After all, it is made of Radioactive material.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"There were medical use radiation items. Google search to see where we store our hospital radiation items (nuclear power plants are right up there)."

And since when did Iraq have nuclear power plants?

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"If these were potential WMD items and a WMD site may I ask why we did not send our forces there to secure it from looters? I mean we semt troops to secure the oli ministry building in Baghdad but we had no troops available to secure this WMD site? If this is a WMD site then heads should role for it not being secured as soon as possible--hell it is not even secured by any troops right now!!"

Try to keep up on the news. Our forces found this site after it had been looted, and before they had reached the oil ministry. We do have it secured now, but like I said it was already looted when our forces got there.

[Destro]

but like I said

Why should I care about what you said? When the good colonel who was there said it all: They [U.S. forces] didn’t try to stop the looting, says Colonel Madere, because “there was no directive that said do not allow anyone in and out of this place.”

It is a simple statement--His forces were there in position to stop the looting but had no orders to do so nor to secure the site. Why are you having such a hard time with it?

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"Um----I thought the whole freaking point about invading Iraq was because the possibility was that the UN was not controling WMD (which was good enough for me)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So in we go fight all the way to Baghdad and....nothing! We secure the empty oil ministry building (it has vital records of oil sales and contracts stored there) yet we send not one platoon to secure this "potential WMD" site!! So who do we fire and courtmartial? The buck stops at Gen. Frank? Rumsfeld?"

We got to this site and secured it after it was looted and before we got to Baghdad. No investigation to show what all had been there was started until after the entire area was secured. There was suspicion about what was taken and the damage (radioactive barrels taken that could kill the looters) before we took Baghdad. Try again on your America is always wrong. Either that or do a little research before you spout off next time. And no I will not do your research for you this time. Do your own.

[Destro]

We got to this site and secured it after it was looted and before we got to Baghdad.

Wrong. This very same article states as follows In the rush to Baghdad, Coalition forces raced past most suspected WMD sites, and looters took over. coupled with Colonel Madere's comments They didn’t try to stop the looting, says Colonel Madere, because “there was no directive that said do not allow anyone in and out of this place.”

PS: It is not blaming America to highlight the failures of those that did not carry out the president's stated war aims. It is blaming the Defense Dept. I just don't know how hig the blame should go. It seems fitting that the buck stops either at Gen. Franks or all the way SoD Rumsfeld for this failure to secure the WMD sites that were raced past in the drive to Baghdad.

[American in Israel]

Dirty bombs are not WMD. They do not do mass destruction, A ounce of anthrax is far more dangerous than a pound of radio active garbage strewn around.

Expensive to clean up yes, but mass destruction? I don't think so...

[ex-Texan]

*BUMP !*

[activationproducts]

A dirty bomb does not meet the defintion of WMD. It would have to be a workable fission weapon to be one.

[browardchad]

may I ask why we did not send our forces there to secure it from looters?

 

This is about the 15th article I've seen on Al Tuwaitha since the war began. The first stories reported on high levels of radioactivity due to looting of stored radioactive waste before allied forces got to the site, after these same Iraqi scientists abandoned Al Tuwaitha, which covers an area equivalent to a small city.

 

Now the media is taking the word of these same scientists, who lived nearby in upscale digs in the midst of surrounding squalor and poverty -- blaming the U.S.

 

The UN inspection teams knew about these sites, and the waste, for years, and did nothing but put seals on the barrels -- now they are deeply saddened that the inevitable has happened.

Meanwhile, according to a  2002 Wall Street Journal article, the number of cancer patients in Iraq had risen 50% in the preceding 10-year period, and the Iraqi regime refused full medical surveys that could pin down the cancer’s cause, preferring to blame the rise in cancer on the sanctions, and depleted uranium shells used during Gulf War I (which has been proved bogus), and claimed it couldn't treat these people because sanctions forbade the import of Cobalt-60 needed for cancer treatment, but  according to this article "major international suppliers say they have never received Iraqi requests for the sources, and Iraqi health officials decline to discuss the matter.  In theory, such medical supplies are (were) allowed."

The bottom line is that Iraqis have been intentionally or carelessly exposed to radioactive materials for decades -- heck, according to this story, the same Cobalt-60 the regime said it couldn't import was used as an instrument of torture in Iraqi prisons.

Anyone who chooses to take at face value stories based on questionable motives of Iraqi doctors, scientists or officials (think crimes against humanity) is obviously hearing what they want to hear.