PDA

View Full Version : CNN on Explosives Story


Secretariat
10-29-2004, 02:41 AM
CNN Transctipt and highlights

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/28/asb.01.html

BROWN: OK, back to the explosives the who and when and the how of it all but on the question of when, as we saw at the top of the program, there is new information to factor in, pretty conclusive to our eye.

So, we'll sort through this now, take the politics out of it and try and deal with facts with former head U.N. weapons inspector -- U.S. weapons inspector David Kay. David, it's nice to see you.

DAVID KAY, FMR. U.S. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good to be with you, Aaron.

BROWN: I don't know how better to do this than to show you some pictures, have you explain to me what they are or are not, OK? First, I'll just call it the seal and tell me if this is an IAEA seal on that bunker at that munitions dump.

KAY: Aaron, as about as certain as I can be looking at a picture, not physically holding it, which obviously I would have preferred to have been there, that's an IAEA seal. I've never seen anything else in Iraq in about 15 years of being in Iraq and around Iraq that was other than an IAEA seal of that shape.

BROWN: And was there anything else at the facility that would have been under IAEA seal?

KAY: Absolutely nothing. It was the HMX, RDX, the two high explosives.

BROWN: OK. Now, I want to take a look at the barrels here for a second and you can tell me what they tell you. They obviously to us just show us a bunch of barrels. You'll see it somewhat differently.

KAY: Well, it's interesting. There were three foreign suppliers to Iraq of this explosive in the 1980s. One of them used barrels like this and inside the barrel is a bag. HMX is in powdered form because you actually use it to shape a spherical lens that is used to create the triggering device for nuclear weapons.

And, particularly on the videotape, which is actually better than the still photos, as the soldier dips into it that's either HMX or RDX. I don't know of anything else in al Qa Qaa that was in that form.

BROWN: Let me ask you then, David, the question I asked Jamie. In regard to the dispute about whether that stuff was there when the Americans arrived, is it game, set, match? Is that part of the argument now over?

KAY: Well, at least with regard to this one bunker and the film shows one seal, one bunker, one group of soldiers going through and there were others there that were sealed, with this one, I think it is game, set and match.

There was HMX, RDX in there. The seal was broken and quite frankly to me the most frightening thing is not only is the seal broken and the lock broken but the soldiers left after opening it up. I mean to rephrase the so-called (UNINTELLIGIBLE) rule if you open an arms bunker, you own it. You have to provide security.

BROWN: That raises a number of questions. Let me throw out one. It suggests that maybe they just didn't know what they had.

KAY: I think quite likely they didn't know they had HMX, which speaks to the lack of intelligence given troops moving through that area but they certainly knew they had explosives.

And to put this in context, I think it's important this loss of 360 tons but Iraq is awash with tens of thousands of tons of explosives right now in the hands of insurgents because we did not provide the security when we took over the country.

BROWN: Could you -- I'm trying to stay out of the realm of politics.

KAY: So am I. BROWN: I'm not sure you can necessarily. I know. It's a little tricky here but is there any reason not to have anticipated the fact that there would be bunkers like this, explosives like this and a need to secure them?

KAY: Absolutely not. For example, al Qa Qaa was a site of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) super gun project. It was a team of mine that discovered the HMX originally in 1991. That was one of the most well documented explosive sites in all of Iraq. The other 80 or so major ammunition storage points were also well documented.

Iraq had, and it's a frightening number, two-thirds of the total conventional explosives that the U.S. has in its entire inventory. The country was an armed camp.

BROWN: David, as quickly as you can because this just came up in the last hour, as dangerous as this stuff is, this would not be described as a WMD, correct?

KAY: Oh, absolutely not.

BROWN: Thank you.

KAY: And, in fact, the loss of it is not a proliferation issue.

BROWN: OK. It's just dangerous and it's out there and by your thinking it should have been secured.

KAY: Well, look, it was used to bring the Pan Am flight down. It's a very dangerous explosive, particularly in the hands of terrorists.

BROWN: David, thank you for walking me through this. I appreciate it, David Kay the former head U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq.

Tom
10-29-2004, 09:44 PM
And before we invaded, all of it, puls the ONE THOUSAND TIMES more explosives we have arelady diposed of were fully under SH control. If this 0.2% of the total found SO FAR, is so dangerous, how can you not agree that we should have invaded and gotten as much out of his hands as possible?
BTW, don't forget, had we not invaded, Lybia would never have turned over its WMD and they would still be in the hands of Kadhafy.
Explain how that is better than what we have now, SEc, you ole spinnign top you!

Secretariat
10-30-2004, 12:10 AM
Tom,

I answered in another thread, but will say this about your second point.

Iraq is ideologically better off today without Saddam, but America is not. Our deficits have ballooned. We are not safer because Hussein has been captured, as the Bin Laden threat today reminded us. Can you name for me one Iraqi terrorist who has ever attacked US soil before the invasion of Iraq? We have 1100 dead American soldiers, and thousands wounded. We have according to Hcap's post 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead. How many wounded, God knows? We have a country awash now in explosives as Duelfer said today as a justifcaiton for not worrying about 380 tons. We have porous borders as the AP reported today with Iran and Iraq. We have the current Prrime Minister of Iraq Allawai blaming coalition forces for actions agaisnt Iraqi soldiers. We have the majority of the people in the world now hating us because of Iraq. Are we better off? I don't think so.

Is Iraq better off? I think Iraqis are currently mixed on this. Yes, they hated Saddam, but the promises have not materialized. Just holding an election in January without peace, and the aiblity to travel and work and live in peace is how we'll win the peace. I saw this in Nam and Kerry talked about it in his 71 Senate speech that you hate. Most of the people just wanted to live in peace. They didn't really care about imposing our system of government upon them. THey just wanted to live in peace.

Bush has created a hornet's nest over there, and now it's gonna be rough to put it out.

Tom
10-30-2004, 01:45 PM
"Is Iraq better off? I think Iraqis are currently mixed on this. Yes, they hated Saddam, but the promises have not materialized. Just holding an election in January without peace, and the aiblity to travel and work and live in peace is how we'll win the peace. I saw this in Nam and Kerry talked about it in his 71 Senate speech that you hate. Most of the people just wanted to live in peace. They didn't really care about imposing our system of government upon them. THey just wanted to live in peace.

Bush has created a hornet's nest over there, and now it's gonna be rough to put it out."

And just how do you suggest they llive in peace without a government?
You are surely not suggesting that they lived in peace under SH are you? No one lives in peace without working to earn the right.
And if SH were still in power, there would be 400,000+ tons of explosives, some ready to use in nuclear devices, some ready to sell to other terror groups.