PDA

View Full Version : NYT: Video shows weapons still there April 18, 2003



spurster
10-29-2004, 08:07 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/politics/29bomb.html

Video Shows G.I.'s at Weapon Cache
By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER

Published: October 29, 2004

A videotape made by a television crew with American troops when they opened bunkers at a sprawling Iraqi munitions complex south of Baghdad shows a huge supply of explosives still there nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein, apparently including some sealed earlier by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The tape, broadcast on Wednesday night by the ABC affiliate in Minneapolis, appeared to confirm a warning given earlier this month to the agency by Iraqi officials, who said that hundreds of tons of high-grade explosives, powerful enough to bring down buildings or detonate nuclear weapons, had vanished from the site after the invasion of Iraq.

The question of whether the material was removed by Mr. Hussein's forces in the days before the invasion, or looted later because it was unguarded, has become a heated dispute on the campaign trail, with Senator John Kerry accusing President Bush of incompetence, and Mr. Bush saying it is unclear when the material disappeared and rejecting what he calls Mr. Kerry's "wild charges."

Weapons experts familiar with the work of the international inspectors in Iraq say the videotape appears identical to photographs that the inspectors took of the explosives, which were put under seal before the war. One frame shows what the experts say is a seal, with narrow wires that would have to be broken if anyone entered through the main door of the bunker.

The agency said that when it left Iraq in mid-March, only days before the war began, the only bunkers bearing its seals at the huge complex contained the explosive known as HMX, which the agency had monitored because it could be used in a nuclear weapons program. It is now clear that program had ground to a halt.

The New York Times and CBS reported on Monday that Iraqi officials had told the agency earlier this month that the explosives were missing, and that they were looted after April 9, 2003, the day Baghdad fell.

Yesterday evening, the Pentagon released a satellite image of the complex taken just two days after the inspectors left, showing a few trucks parked in front of some bunkers. It is not clear they are the bunkers with the high explosives.

"All we are trying to demonstrate is that after the I.A.E.A. left, and the place was under Saddam's control, there was activity," said Lawrence DiRita, the Pentagon spokesman. It is not clear from the photo what activity, if any, was under way.

On Thursday, a top Iraqi official said the interim government had spoken to witnesses who said the material was still at Al Qaqaa at the time Baghdad fell.

The videotape , taken by KSTP-TV, an ABC affiliate in Minneapolis-St. Paul, shows troops breaking into a bunker and opening boxes and examining barrels. Many of the containers are marked "explosive." One box is marked "Al Qaqaa State Establishment," apparently a shipping label from a manufacturer.

The ABC crew said the video was taken on April 18. The timing is critical to the debate in the presidential campaign. By the Pentagon's own account, units of the 101st Airborne Division were near Al Qaqaa for what Mr. DiRita said was "two to three weeks," starting April 10.

Then they headed north to Baghdad, and the site was apparently left unguarded. By the time special weapons teams returned to Al Qaqaa in May, the explosives were apparently gone.

In disputing claims by Mr. Kerry that the Americans had lost the explosives, a senior administration official said Thursday, "We don't know all the facts and no one should be jumping to conclusions." Al Qaqaa, the official said, "was not controlled for three weeks after the I.A.E.A. left," and added "there are a lot of dots we have to connect."

The Pentagon also notes that it has destroyed 400,000 tons of munitions from thousands of sites across Iraq, and that the explosives at Al Qaqaa account for "one-tenth of 1 percent" of that amount.

The Minneapolis television crew was with an Army unit that was camped near Al Qaqaa, members of the crew said. The reporter and cameraman said that although they were not told specifically that they were being taken to Al Qaqaa by the military, their videotape matches pictures of the site taken by United Nations weapons inspectors, according to weapons experts.

"The photographs are consistent with what I know of Al Qaqaa," said David A. Kay, a former American official who led the recent hunt in Iraq for unconventional weapons and visited the vast site. "The damning thing is the seals. The Iraqis didn't use seals on anything. So I'm absolutely sure that's an I.A.E.A. seal."

One weapons expert said the videotape and some of the agency's photographs of the HMX stockpiles "were such good matches it looked like they were taken by the same camera on the same day."

Independent experts said several other factors - the geography; the number of bunkers; the seals on some of the bunker doors; the boxes, crates and barrels similar to those seen by weapon inspectors - confirm that the videotape was taken at Al Qaqaa.

"There's not another place that you would mistake it for," said Dean Staley, the KSTP reporter, who now works in Seattle.

The accidental news encounter began last year after the invasion, Mr. Staley recalled in an interview. Their Army unit arrived in the region on Friday, April 11, and made camp. The Fifth Battalion of the 101st Airborne's 159th Aviation Brigade flew helicopter missions from the camp in the Iraqi desert, moving troops and supplies to the front.

A week later, on Friday, April 18, two journalists recalled, they joined two soldiers who were driving in a Humvee to investigate the nearby bunkers. Among other things, wandering inside the cavernous buildings offered the prospect of relief from the desert sun.

"It was just by chance that we were able to go," said Joe Caffrey, the team's photographer. "They wanted to go out and we asked to tag along."

Mr. Caffrey provided The New York Times with the latitude and longitude of the camp, which places it between 1.5 and 3 miles southeast of Al Qaqaa bunkers. A commercial satellite photograph of the region shows that the camp was close to the storage site. Mr. Caffrey said the soldiers used bolt cutters to cut through chains with locks on them, as well as seals. He said the seals appeared to be lead disks attached to very thin wires that were wrapped around the doors of the bunker entrances, forming a barrier easily cut in two.

They visited a half dozen bunkers, he said. The gloomy interiors revealed long rows of boxes, crates and barrels, what independent experts said were three kinds of HMX containers shipped to Iraq from France, China and Yugoslavia.

The team opened storage containers, some of which contained white powder that independent experts said was consistent with HMX.

"The soldiers were pretty much in awe of what they were seeing," Mr. Caffrey recalled. "They were saying their E.O.D. - Explosive Ordinance Division, people who blow this kind of stuff up - would have a field day."

The journalists filmed roughly 25 minutes of video. Mr. Caffrey added that the team left the bunker doors open. "It would have been easy for anybody to get in," he said.

Mr. Staley recalled that during the drive back to camp, they saw a red Toyota pickup truck with some Iraqis in it. "Our impression was they were looters," he said. "This was a no man's land. It was a huge facility, and we worried that they were bad guys who might come up on us."

The two journalists filed a short story, which ran soon thereafter in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

In the interview, Mr. Caffrey said he had carefully rechecked the date on the cassette for his camera, adding that he was sure it was April 18, 2003.

Yesterday Mohamed al-Sharaa, director of the national monitoring directorate at the Iraq Ministry of Science and Technology, explained for the first time why Iraqi officials had specified in their letter to the United Nations agency that the explosives had been looted after April 9, 2003. "We have some witnesses," Mr. Sharaa said outside his office at the ministry. "They say that the materials," he added, were "in this site after April 9."

The witnesses were people working at Al Qaqaa, Mr. Sharaa said. Still, he said, the evidence is not yet definitive, and "we don't say it's impossible" that the material was somehow taken out of Al Qaqaa before the American forces came through the area. The first American forces arrived at Al Qaqaa on April 3.

Rashad M. Omar, the minister of science and technology, said that as far as he was concerned, the exact timing of the disappearance remained unknown. "How, where, when is it taken, all these questions, we don't have answers," Dr. Omar said.

He said a committee headed by himself was about to undertake an investigation of the disappearance, in parallel with American efforts to clear up the mystery. Dr. Omar said that he was extremely confident that the investigations would determine the facts of the case.

"The quantity was so huge," Dr. Omar said. "Somebody must know what happened to the material. I am sure the facts will not be hidden for a long time."

James Glanz contributed reportingfrom Baghdad for this article.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Marcus Bryant
10-29-2004, 08:33 AM
So, if true, Saddam possessed weapons that constituted a grave threat to the United States at the time of the invasion. Of course it's not clear whether all the material was there (nothing on the RDX), it would be helpful if the Times provided information such as who their "experts" were, and also whether they really feel their editorial staff really feels that Bush still 'lied' about Iraq possessing weapons which constituted a threat to the US.

JoeChalupa
10-29-2004, 08:54 AM
There are weapons that pose a great threat to the US in other parts of the world as well.

Useruser666
10-29-2004, 09:01 AM
There are weapons that pose a great threat to the US in other parts of the world as well.

And they should be dealt with as well. Although, different means require different measures.

JoeChalupa
10-29-2004, 09:23 AM
I agree and what also bothers me is the big picture in all this.
US military commanders estimated last fall that Iraqi military sites contained about 650,000 to 1 million tons of explosives, artillery shells, aviation bombs and other ammunition. Even the Bush administration cited official figures this week showing about 400,000 tons destroyed or in the process of being eliminated.
That leaves about 250,000 tons unaccounted for.
And I'm not putting all the blame on Bush and I'm no military expert but you would think that anytime war caches are found they should be guarded.
And I don't blame the troops either.

Useruser666
10-29-2004, 09:51 AM
I agree and what also bothers me is the big picture in all this.
US military commanders estimated last fall that Iraqi military sites contained about 650,000 to 1 million tons of explosives, artillery shells, aviation bombs and other ammunition. Even the Bush administration cited official figures this week showing about 400,000 tons destroyed or in the process of being eliminated.
That leaves about 250,000 tons unaccounted for.
And I'm not putting all the blame on Bush and I'm no military expert but you would think that anytime war caches are found they should be guarded.
And I don't blame the troops either.

I think it's much more difficult to both understand those numbers and follow through on a plan with them. Remember Saddam had years to hide this stuff all over the place. I doubt if really good records were kept of exactly how much or where any of it was kept. What does the term "explosives" actually mean? Does that include munnitions such as RPG rounds and common the 7.62?? There are many unknowns at this time. More investigations must be performed and even then it may not be possible to get all the facts.

Clandestino
10-29-2004, 10:04 AM
but i thought saddam was harmless??? all this explosive material couldn't be his... maybe the International ATOMIC Energy Agency planted it there!

JoeChalupa
10-29-2004, 10:04 AM
You are correct sir!!

Marcus Bryant
10-29-2004, 10:24 AM
http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200410282152.asp



ABOUT THAT TELEVISION AFFILIATE VIDEOTAPE FROM AL-QAQAA

I watched the big ABC News report (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847): “Video Suggests Explosives Disappeared After U.S. Took Control.”

And at first glance, it appears to make the case that when the 101st Airborne Division arrived on April 18, 2003, there was still a large supply of explosive materials in the facility.

But there are still a few problems with this story.

Problem one: Take a look at the orange label on the container, in this photo. (http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3740.html?cat=1)

It says, “EXPLOSIV EXPLOSIVE 1.1 D 1”. (The same label can be purchased here. (http://www.dgsupplies.com/shopping/customer/home.php?cat=8&js=n))

There are three explosives we are looking for here:


HMX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMX), cyclotetramethylene-tetranitramine, also called Tetrahexamine Tetranitramine

RDX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDX), Cyclotrimethylene trinitramine, and

PETN (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/PETN), Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate

According to this chart (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/4-30-13/apph.htm) from GlobalSecurity.org, the 1.1D classification can be used for the storage and transport of quite a few high powered explosives. Among them are:


Cyclotetramethylene-tetranitramine, wetted or HMX, wetted or Octogen, wetted with not less than 15 percent water, by mass

Cyclotrimethylene-trinitramine, wetted or Cyclonite, wetted or Hexogen, wetted or RDX, wetted with not less than 15 percent water by mass

Pentaerythrite tetranitrate, wetted or Pentaerythritol tetranitrate, wetted, or PETN, wetted with not less than 25 percent water, by mass, or Pentaerythrite tetranitrate, or Pentaerythritol tetranitrate, or PETN, desensitized with not less than 15 percent phlegmatizer by mass.

So - this orange 1.1 D is the label we would look for on HMX, RDX, or PETN. But did those explosives in these containers have 15 or 25 percent water or other dilution liquid in them? Or did they look pretty dry in that desert?

And as we look at the rest of that chart, we see that a lot of other explosives that fall in the 1.1 D category.

Specifically there are 79 other substances and types of explosive material and supporting equipment that would get the 1.1 D label, including gunpowder, flexible detonating cord, photo-flash bombs, mines, nitroglycerin, rocket warheads, grenades, fuzes, torpedoes and charges. And few of them require any liquid dilution.

Is what’s on this news report video HMX, RDX, or PETN? Possibly, if the material inside is some sort of diluting liquid that we didn’t see on the tape, or if the Iraqis were storing these high-grade explosives in an unsafe manner. Or it could be one of the 79 other substances. Or some containers could have the big three, and some could have others.

As usual, it is foolish for folks to jump in and conclude that they know what was in the containers without gathering all of the facts. How many Kerry-backing writers who will cite this video as a smoking gun are familiar with what materials are classified 1.1D?

Problem two: This doesn’t quite explain the internal IAEA documents ABC reported (http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1) that suggested that significant amounts were gone before the invasion began. “Confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.” It all suddenly came back before the war? Or is what we’re seeing in the video three tons?

Problem three: This doesn’t quite explain the Pentagon’s satellite photos of large numbers of trucks leaving the facilities before the war.

Problem four: This doesn’t quite explain how all this could be taken down a road full of heavily armed U.S. forces, under skies full of coalition warplanes. The Pentagon called the removal of that much material from the facility during or after the war “very highly improbable”: (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/302/wash/Commander_says_unlikely_large_:.shtml)


Col. David Perkins commanded the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, the division that led the charge into Baghdad. Those troops first captured the Iraqi weapons depot from which 377 tons of explosives disappeared.

Two major roads that pass near the Al-Qaqaa installation were filled with U.S. military traffic in the weeks after April 3, 2003, when U.S. troops first reached the area, the colonel said.

Perkins and others in the military acknowledged that some looting at the site had taken place. But he said a large-scale operation to remove the explosives using trucks almost certainly would have been detected.


Problem five: This doesn’t quite explain why none of this explosive has to date shown up in any Iraqi insurgent attack.

One last observation. Follow the shifting headline as the story moves from one news agency to another:

ABC News headline (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847): “Video Suggests Explosives Disappeared After U.S. Took Control

Reuters headline (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=1&u=/nm/20041028/ts_nm/iraq_explosives_abc_dc): “Report: Video Shows Explosives Went Missing After War”

[Posted 10/28 09:52 PM]

Marcus Bryant
10-29-2004, 10:52 AM
http://www.drudgereport.com/


FLASH 10.29.01 11:36:56 ET /// Soldier to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al Qaqaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons... Developing...

CommanderMcBragg
10-29-2004, 10:54 AM
Why is it a soldier and not an officer making this statement?

Marcus Bryant
10-29-2004, 10:58 AM
Perhaps it is an officer. Also, if the guy was actually there and dealt with the explosives I would think he is worth hearing from given the gravity of this matter.

CommanderMcBragg
10-29-2004, 11:02 AM
I agree. You would think that this information would have been readily available.

Clandestino
10-29-2004, 11:19 AM
Why is it a soldier and not an officer making this statement?

an officer is a soldier

Aggie Hoopsfan
10-29-2004, 11:29 AM
He's an Army Major (O-4), that's about the right rank for field command.

spurster
10-29-2004, 11:42 AM
You can spin it how you want, but it's bad news for Bush.

These explosives were not the WMDs that Bush promised, so they do not fit that definition of "grave threat". No one pre-invasion was claiming these explosives were a reason for invading Iraq. Now that they become one after invading Iraq is just another example of how Bush has shifted (some might say flip-floped) his rationales for this war.

However, these explosives were among the most powerful weapons known to be in Iraq, so "leaving the door open" is a colossal error. Key reasons for this error are:

1. The war was narrowly focused on Saddam and WMDs.

2. There was enough manpower to easily depose Saddam, but nothing more.

3. There was zero focus on the supposed terrorists because if you operate as if there are terrorists around you, you don't leave the f***ing door open. This uncovers a large lie in the original rationale. They were not planning for any terrorists to be around. So much for a "front on terror".

4. They assumed too much that the Iraqis would be grateful to the US for deposing Saddam and would not fight them as an occupier. I will grant that most, probably the vast majority, of Iraqis are happy to be rid of Saddam, but also most are not happy to have Iraq occupied by the US with increasing unhappiness every day. They certainly should have known that some elements would fight back and a significant percentage would be sympathetic.

While powerful, the explosives were not WMDs, so what's the big deal? I think it stands for a larger issue which is the bungling from this administration that has continued to this day. Combined with the constant denials of any mistakes and any responsibility for anything that goes wrong, this creates a big dissonance from their promises to keep us safe.

CommanderMcBragg
10-29-2004, 11:43 AM
So then that proves they WERE there when the attcked?

And where are they now?

Useruser666
10-29-2004, 11:58 AM
You can spin it how you want, but it's bad news for Bush.

These explosives were not the WMDs that Bush promised, so they do not fit that definition of "grave threat". No one pre-invasion was claiming these explosives were a reason for invading Iraq. Now that they become one after invading Iraq is just another example of how Bush has shifted (some might say flip-floped) his rationales for this war.

However, these explosives were among the most powerful weapons known to be in Iraq, so "leaving the door open" is a colossal error. Key reasons for this error are:

1. The war was narrowly focused on Saddam and WMDs.

2. There was enough manpower to easily depose Saddam, but nothing more.

3. There was zero focus on the supposed terrorists because if you operate as if there are terrorists around you, you don't leave the f***ing door open. This uncovers a large lie in the original rationale. They were not planning for any terrorists to be around. So much for a "front on terror".

4. They assumed too much that the Iraqis would be grateful to the US for deposing Saddam and would not fight them as an occupier. I will grant that most, probably the vast majority, of Iraqis are happy to be rid of Saddam, but also most are not happy to have Iraq occupied by the US with increasing unhappiness every day. They certainly should have known that some elements would fight back and a significant percentage would be sympathetic.

While powerful, the explosives were not WMDs, so what's the big deal? I think it stands for a larger issue which is the bungling from this administration that has continued to this day. Combined with the constant denials of any mistakes and any responsibility for anything that goes wrong, this creates a big dissonance from their promises to keep us safe.


I respect your opinions, but I feel like your make any attempt and rebuting them a damned if you do, damned if you don't arguement. I believe we went to Iraq for several reasons.

#1 Iraq might have WMD. Even the threat was worth it. Especially one that was substantiated by the intellegence of the time.

#2 Overthrow Saddam. A dangerous leader who had the power to start wars and threaten his neighbors.

#3 Eliminate a possible terrorist refuge. Even if there are no solid leads now and we find fault in the ones we had at the time, why is this not a good thing?

#4 OIL!!!! Yes we went there for oil. Anyone who thinks that is not important is a fool. Everything we do in our dailty lives is based off the US's oil supply. Everything you own or use has a connection in some way with the petroleum industry.

#5 Working to stabilize the Middle East. This is a first step. Sometimes you need treaties. Sometimes you need sanctions. Sometimes you need a big stick.

Marcus Bryant
10-29-2004, 11:58 AM
So if the loss of these explosives was not serious then why is it even a topic of discussion? Also of note is the fact that according to some of the myriad of UN resolutions that Hussein ignored he wasn't supposed to have had those explosives in the first place.

And again, the only reason the true state of Hussein's WMD program was not known was because of Hussein. The United States was never going to get a full accounting of what he had, because for him the front of having WMDs was all important. He had played games with the inspectors for years.

Prior to 9/11 there was already a good case for removing Hussein due to his decades long failure to account for what he had done with his WMD program. As we have found out, Hussein was buying influence at the UN through its corrupt Oil for Food program. What did he want? The easing of sanctions. Why? So that he could restart his WMD program. Some of those WMDs could be created in a matter of weeks, so its not like there is really that much difference. With the sanctions arrangment breaking down and our "allies" betting on Hussein remaining in power you think the responsible decision is to let a worsening situation continue to worsen? If you want to criticize Bush's decision through 20/20 hindsight then you also cannot ignore the other facts that are known about what Hussein was up to.

Bush made the responsible decision. As much as you want to bag on him after the fact would you be comfortable with a president who decided to leave a ruthless dictator in power with WMDs in his possession, who had used them before and who had been in contact with terrorists post-9/11?

These decisions are made in real time not from the comfy perspective of almost 2 years hence.

The "box" that Hussein was in was not sustainable, no matter how much you want to blindly ignore that fact. It's clear to anyone with an open mind, which is why responsible, independent-minded public officials like Senators McCain and Lieberman supported the invasion and continue to support it.

But I think it was Senator Kerry who said it best:


"George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)

So spare me with the election year partisan nonsense. Hussein was indeed a serious threat and yes, he was a threat in part because we didn't know with full accuracy what he had. The Clinton administration certainly regarded him as a threat, which is why it was the first administration to adopt regime change in Iraq as offical US government policy. It's fairly clear at this point that the Bush administration's greatest error is that it is a Republican administration.

Good day.

-MB

Aggie Hoopsfan
10-29-2004, 12:08 PM
4. They assumed too much that the Iraqis would be grateful to the US for deposing Saddam and would not fight them as an occupier. I will grant that most, probably the vast majority, of Iraqis are happy to be rid of Saddam, but also most are not happy to have Iraq occupied by the US with increasing unhappiness every day.

This is where I blame our intelligence structure. Oppressed peoples of Muslim countries have been open to liberation before, but after you free them they want you to get the hell out. I realize this is happening as fast as we can make it happen (training people, elections, etc.) but it should be happening.

The oil rant cracks me up. Let's see, we know France, Germany, Russia, probably Turkey and Egypt as well, were all profiting from Saddam's food for oil program.

And then everyone screams that 1) Bush did it for the oil 2) he didn't have the blessings of the UN (France, Germany, Russia, etc.) to go in.

Anyone else see the irony?

exstatic
10-29-2004, 12:12 PM
So, if true, Saddam possessed weapons that constituted a grave threat to the United States at the time of the invasion.

Circular logic. He had no delivery mechanism, so they're only a "danger" to US citizens if they are in Iraq as part of an invasion.

Aggie Hoopsfan
10-29-2004, 12:14 PM
Delivery mechanism? Part of the argument was that he'd pass it on to AQ. You don't think Osama would like to be a delivery mechanism?

Marcus Bryant
10-29-2004, 12:18 PM
Circular logic. He had no delivery mechanism, so they're only a "danger" to US citizens if they are in Iraq as part of an invasion.

No, correct logic. He gives them to some crazy fucking terrorists who use them to hit the US.

Marcus Bryant
10-29-2004, 01:25 PM
.

Nbadan
10-29-2004, 02:13 PM
More from this story..


A 5 Eyewitness News crew in Iraq may have been just a door away from materials that could be used to detonate nuclear weapons. The evidence is in videotape shot by Reporter Dean Staley and Photographer Joe Caffrey at or near the Al Qaqaa munitions facility.

The video shows a cable locking a door shut. That cable is connected by a copper colored seal.

A spokesperson for the International Atomic Energy Agency told 5 Eyewitness News that seal appears to be one used by their inspectors. "In Iraq they were used when there was a concern that this could have a, what we call, dual use purpose, that there could be a nuclear weapons application."

http://kstp.com/kstpimages/IAEA-seal_011.jpg

http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-QaQaa-pix_10.jpg

KSTP (http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=1)


Photojournalist Joe Caffrey recalls seeing Iraqis watching them as they went through the bunkers. As his crew and the troops from the 101st departed each bunker, they left them open.

"We weren't quite sure what we were looking at, but we saw so much of it and it didn't appear that this was being secured in any way," said photojournalist Joe Caffrey. "It was several miles away from where military people were staying in their tents."

Caffrey also recalls overhearing a military briefing after curious soliders had encountered another bunker.

"Apparently two soldiers had gone in to these bunkers, lit a match for light and the fumes or powder... whatever it was, exploded and burned their clothes off," he said. "Shortly thereafter, everyone was told to stay away from these bunkers"

Another bunker encountered by the 101st Airborne and the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew was locked with chains and a seal left by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency. According to the IAEA, the seal marked a facility suspected of holding "dual-purpose" materials that could be used to produce nuclear weapons.

KSPT (http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3740.html?cat=64)

Marcus Bryant
10-29-2004, 02:17 PM
Yes, Saddam had dangerous weapons and had to be taken out. Thanks for confirming that.

ClintSquint
10-29-2004, 02:28 PM
Any weapon is dangerous.

Marcus Bryant
10-29-2004, 02:34 PM
Thanks for clearing that up.

ClintSquint
10-29-2004, 02:39 PM
Don't mention it. I could see you needed the help.

Marcus Bryant
10-29-2004, 02:55 PM
Not really. Just being polite.