Quote:
Originally Posted by catzmeow";p="
Gosh, Glowdog, but you have nothing to say about the fact
1) that this is an old story, recycled for some reason at this time by IAEA.
|
I've had plenty to say about that, if you read back over my postings on this issue.
When I first heard you assert that this is an old story, I asked you to back that up. You never responded.
I've never heard this come up before, and I'm a bit of a news junkie. So if I missed it somehow, please --- once again --- source it and enlighten me.
I also posted a timeline in one of these threads, on Monday I believe, that broke down what has happened as we understand it so far. IIRC, one reason I wrote that post was to refute the "old story" allegation. The correspondence between the Iraqi government and the IAEA, then the communication between the IAEA and the US, and then the submission of the Iraqi/IAEA letter to the Security Council - this all happened in the last month, October 2004. And it started with the IAEA asking the Iraqi government for a grievously overdue accounting of the weapons/facilities that are still under the IAEA's jurisdiction. This accounting is supposed to be done semiannually, and has not been done by either the US or the Iraqis since the invasion occurred over 18 months ago.
The IAEA is trying to do its job. I have seen no evidence they "recycled" something for political reasons. In fact, one posting I made yesterday pointed out a story graf (MSNBC, I think?) that said the IAEA held off on "going public" (turning over the Iraqi letter to the Security Council) in order to give the US/Coalition time to somehow account for the explosives. They only turned over the letter after the story was already made public in the media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by catzmeow";p="
2) that IAEA inspectors were on this site in MARCH, not January, contrary to their claims.
|
That is not "news". They didn't claim otherwise. You have just misread something somewhere if you were confused on this point.
The IAEA did a thorough inspection in January, 2003. Then, in mid-March, they did a spot check of Al Qaqaa and verifed the the seals.
The fact that the IAEA verified that Al Qaqaa was secure in mid-March 2003 actually helps us narrow the timeframe as to when the explosives went missing, and who is responsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by catzmeow";p="
3) That the site was investigated by U.S. forces at that time, who found no IAEA materials.
|
Again, you are not reading very carefully. The above AP(Fox link) article says nothing of the sort. It doesn't mention at all whether the 3rd Infantry unit was doing a full investigation, or if they were looking specifically for IAEA documented materials, or if they found them or not.
According to the NYT article I posted at the top of this thread, and the CBS article you posted in another thread (
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in651082.shtml), neither the 3rd Infantry unit (April 3rd) nor the 101st Airborne unit (April 10th) investigated Al Qaqaa in any meaningful way, with regards to IAEA documented materials.
From the CBS link:
Quote:
When troops from the 101st Airborne Division's 2nd Brigade arrived at the Al-Qaqaa base a day or so after other coalition troops seized Baghdad on April 9, 2003, there were already looters throughout the facility, Lt. Col. Fred Wellman, deputy public affairs officer for the unit, told The Associated Press. [glowdog note - this is contradicted by Col. Joseph Anderson, the commander on the ground who was there]
The soldiers "secured the area they were in and looked in a limited amount of bunkers to ensure chemical weapons were not present," said Wellman, in an e-mail message to The Associated Press. "Bombs were found but not chemical weapons in that immediate area. Orders were not given from higher to search or to secure the facility or to search for HE type munitions, as they (high-explosive weapons) were everywhere in Iraq."
The 101st Airborne was apparently at least the second military unit to arrive at Al-Qaqaa after the U.S. led invasion began. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told The Washington Post that the 3rd Infantry Division reached the site around April 3, fought with Iraq forces and occupied the site. They left after two days, headed for Baghdad.
AP Correspondent Chris Tomlinson, who was embedded with the 3rd Infantry but didn't go to Al-Qaqaa, described the search of Iraqi military facilities south of Baghdad as brief, cursory missions to seek out hostile troops, not to inventory or secure weapons stockpiles.
|
And, according to both articles, the site was left unguarded both times.
Al Qaqaa was not meaningfully investigated by a trained task force specifically doing a weapons search until May 27, 2003 - fully 7 weeks later. It had been looted by that point, and the task force found no IAEA seals.
I have seen no mention yet if any US troops were sent to guard the facility between April 10th and May 27th. The implication so far is that it was not guarded.
Even now, it is not guarded. Looters were spotted out there this past Sunday.