ABC: Discrepancy Found in Explosive Amounts

[milkyway]

Documents show Iraqis may be overstating amount of missing material.

Iraqi officials may be overstating the amount of explosives reported to have disappeared from a weapons depot, documents obtained by ABC News show.

The Iraqi interim government has told the United States and international weapons inspectors that 377 tons of conventional explosives are missing from the Al-Qaqaa installation, which was supposed to be under U.S. military control.

But International Atomic Energy Agency documents obtained by ABC News and first reported on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" indicate the amount of missing explosives may be substantially less than the Iraqis reported.

The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing — presumably stolen due to a lack of security — was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility.

But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over 3 tons of RDX was stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.

The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the start of the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.

The missing explosives have become an issue in the presidential campaign. Sen. John Kerry has pointed to the disappearance as evidence of the Bush administration's poor handling of the war. The Bush camp has responded that more than a thousand times that amount of explosives or munitions have been recovered or destroyed in Iraq.


Another Concern

The IAEA documents from January 2003 found no discrepancy in the amount of the more dangerous HMX explosives thought to be stored at Al-Qaqaa, but they do raise another disturbing possibility.

The documents show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility. Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted.

ABC News' Martha Raddatz filed this report for "World News Tonight." Luis Martinez contributed to this report

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304

__________

I have a couple of questions about this. First, on October 10 the Iraqi provisional government notified the IAEA of the missing explosives and the amount. On October 15 the IAEA notified Condi, who then told bush. So if the IAEA documents obtained by ABC showed 3 tons of RDX was missing rather than 141 tons, which number was Condi given? If it was 3 tons then why wouldn't the bush admin say this two days ago? And if she was given the number of 141 tons, was the IAEA deliberately misleading her?

Also, I'm unsure but I think Martha Raddatz covers the Pentagon and national security for ABC. I wonder who her source was for these IAEA documents. This story may end up being the veracity of the bush admin vs. the IAEA.

[bemildred]

1. Weasel, weasel, weasel.

Why is there any doubt, about how much, about where it is?

[Dr Fate]

2. Thank GOD! The terrorists only stole THREE TONS!!!!

I'm sure the families of the troops will sleep so much better now.

[ogradda]

4. whew! they only got enough to blow up HALF the world!

well i'll sleep better tonite:eyes:

[troublemaker]

3. This is lame. I would take Kay's word on this, but reporters pawing over

stacks of documents written over 15 years cannot possibly get this sort of story correct in this kind of time-frame. IMO.

[maryallen]

6. How much stock do the Saudis own in Disney (ABC) and ...

CNN?

[troublemaker]

5. ***DON'T MISREAD THIS STORY***

This story does NOT say there were only three tons. It says three tons of RDX. We are still talking about 100-200 tons total.

"The IAEA documents from January 2003 found no discrepancy in the amount of the more dangerous HMX"

[Nordic]

8. good catch!

bravo.

And it doesn't matter anyway. The stuff is so powerful that even one ton of it could blow up all the commercial jetliners in America

[truthpusher]

18. Do the Iraqis want * out, are they trying to make it look?

Can it be possible that the * appointed government wants to deal with another president?

[Nordic]

7. well considering that one POUND of the stuff can bring down a jetliner

I don't think it really matters very much.

[progressivebydesign]

10. Actually, they reported only 1/4 pound could do it.

How utterly scary is that? What is 4 tons divided by 1/4 pound? How sickening that they are trying to tap dance around this. You are no less dead if you are blown up by 1/4 pound or 140 tons of explosives. A sad day in America, when the government chooses covering their ass, over protecting their troops.

[Nordic]

12. troops and everyone else in the world!

If this stuff can go on the open market, as I'm sure it already has, pretty much anybody can get this!

And use it anywhere.

[killbotfactory]

9. I guess they're just going to keep throwing a bunch of crap...

hoping some sticks.

Kind of like "rathergate"

[BrewerJohn]

11. Confused, misleading wording by ABC here

First, they claim that the Iraqi Science Ministry said that there were 377 tons of RDX missing. Then in the next sentence, they quote the 7/15/02 declaration as saying there had been 141 tons of RDX stored at the site. Finally, they downgrade the amount of RDX to 3 tons, per their documents from the IAEA.

I understood from the previous reporting that 377 tons was the total of all types of HE on site. Farther down they do refer to 194 tons of HMX, which are not in dispute. 141 tons of RDX plus 194 tons of HMX gives a total of 335 tons. I recall there being a third type of HE on site, which ABC does not reference here. That could easily bring the total up to 377 tons.

So even if their IAEA docs are correct, that would only cut the total amount to what, 63 percent of the original figure? But the way they worded it, if one doesn't read carefully it looks like the whole 377 tons gets cut down to 3.

[milkyway]

13. Good catch. The 377 refers to all 3 types of explosives added together.

The third type was PETN.

[Carolab]

14. so what

In its recent twice-annual report to the Security Council, the IAEA warned that satellite imagery and open surveillance information shows "widespread and apparently systematic dismantlement that has taken place at sites previously relevant to Iraq's nuclear program...in many instances the dismantlement of entire buildings that housed high precision equipment...formerly monitored and tagged with IAEA seals, as well as the removal of equipment and materials." IAEA inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in March 2003 at US behest and have not been welcome since. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said the missing dual-use machinery could be used in manufacturing bombs. As Charles Duelfer confirmed, Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons sites had been closed down and monitored by the IAEA since 1991. Under antiproliferation agreements the US and Iraq's interim government are obligated to inform the agency about missing equipment and material from former sites but haven't done so. It appears the US occupation allowed bomb-making equipment to be stolen and possibly fall into terrorists' hands.

From The Nation 11/8/04

Sez that the U.S. kicked IAEA out in March 2003 and has NOT been reporting as agreed.

[Brundle_Fly]

15. 100 tons of HMX

600 very effective car bombs, 2100 roadside bombs, 650 jetliners...

then with the remainder you'd have just enough....




























to do the same all over again.

[Carolab]

16. Plus

"Our greatest concern from both a proliferation standpoint and from a standpoint of danger to human beings was Al-Qaqaa," the IAEA's Fleming said.

Weapons experts are questioning why Al-Qaqaa - once a key facility in Saddam Hussein's effort to build a nuclear bomb - wasn't under 24-hour guard.

The facility was considered "the pre-eminent site for high explosive stockpiles," a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/100...

[JDPriestly]

17. The quantity of explosives is not the issue.

The quality of planning is.

In preparing to invade Iraq, the Bush administration created no plan to prevent Hussein loyalists and terrorists from obtaining Hussein's abandoned military materiel. What's worse, when it became obvious that U.S. forces would relatively quickly overwhelm the Iraqi army, there was still no effort to safeguard captured munitions depots. Like leaving an unlocked chest of loaded guns in a day care center, that constitutes criminal neglect.

Over a thousand of our troops have been killed in Iraq -- many of them by car bombs and other explosions. Sooner or later ordinary Americans will put two and two together. No amount of confabulation by the Bush administration can hide this criminal neglect.

[Sara Beverley]

19. OK, so the story is "true." Now let's make it irrelevant!

So the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq invasion was and still is incompetent. But that's ok, becuase it doesn't matter.

[flobee1kenobi]

20. My head is about to explode!

THE AMOUNT IS NOT THE ISSUE, GEORGE!
If it was 100 pounds or 4 tonnes the issue is the same!
YOU IGNORED IT TO GET TO THE OIL!!!!
Plain and simple!
Troops laid hands on the explosives-and were told to leave it and move on
THAT IS THE ISSUE GEORGE!!!!!

[Beetwasher]

21. Ahh, the Old "There's A Tiny Flaw So IT MUST ALL BE LIES!!!"

Tactic...Pffffft!