False, check your facts, nOT used in n. weapons, and NOT prohibited by the UN. which IS why I.A.E.A inspectors left them in place.
These errors also mean the rest of this story needs to be verified.
Gerald
Anthropologist

"RDX and HMX explosives which the I.A.E.A located and identified in 2003 were in clear violation of UN sanctions because of their use in the manufacture of nuclear weapons as well as other military functions prohibited by the UN. Yet the I.A.E.A allowed these weapons to remain in place at the al

Couple more interesting links:
FT article on the russian case.

Mr Shaw, who heads the Pentagon�s international armament and technology trade directorate, has not provided evidence for his claims and the Pentagon distanced itself from his remarks.

�I am unaware of any particular information on that point,� said Larry Di Rita, Pentagon spokesman.

I read the article Mike. Here is what it also said:

The accounts do not directly address the question of when 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives vanished from the site sometime after early March, the last time international inspectors checked the seals on the bunkers where the material was stored. It is possible that Iraqi forces removed some explosives before the invasion.

Gerald,

Every single news organization that has mentioned these explosives have ALL stated they are the kind that could be used to detonate a nuclear weapon. I think you need to check your facts, or at least read what the NY Times wrote.

David

David: Perhaps I commented with an interesting related article and not because I was trying to prove anything. Remember when people could talk without trying to spin the news to be the best or worst possible case for their candidate?

Frankly, I think that the US government would have inundated us with news reports if they caught the former regime (and their purported allies, our friends the Russians) moving hundreds of tons of material by truck to the Syrian border in the month before the war. It would almost have been a causus belli:"we had to secure the WMDs they're moving right now". A month before the war and we didn't have good intelligence on what was coming out of one of the biggest suspected sites for WMD production? That's hardly more reassuring than the "we didn't watch this site and lost 380 tons of explosives to looters".

Even if this is true, it's still not good news.

I think it was the Martians.

Where on earth do these loony theories come from?

And I strongly encourage everyone not to read the Washington Times. It has been shown to rot the mind.

David I am glad that you put a question mark after this post title. This is nothing but speculation at this point and the whole article is based on the words of one man who is just speculating. I read the whole article looking for facts and there are none. This is how mis-information gets spread to the public and you are only helping. I like how the W-Times presents their headline as fact when the whole article is nothing but that. At least the New York Times stories are backed up by facts and eye witness accounts. Yes, this is a developing story but the fact remains that this stuff is missing because of our invasion of this country and that my friend is a tragedy.

Flanagan quoting the Washington Times...

Disinformation supplied by a Disinformation Specialist.



PS: Santa told me there is no evidence to suggest the existence of the Easter Bunny.

that's what you get for listening to santa!

Aside:

Can't forget Bush saying -- over and over during the debates -- "Vladimir" when referring to Stali... I mean Putin.

Bush has "looked into his soul" ["Vladamir's"] and found it boundless with integrity.

(And we all know what a good judge of integrity Bush is...)

And Putin has asked us to vote for Bush. Isn't that reassuring?

And insurgents in Iraq are asking you to vote for Kerry. Which one is more comforting to you?

One of the reasons Bush has not said anything is that, as some of you have stated, this is on person and two unnamed sources in the pentagon who have come forward with this story. On the other hand, Kerry has been accusing the President of secretly plotting to restore the draft after he is reelected and there is not one shred of evidence to support that. Furthermore, the media has given this story widespread coverage.

At least this story has an official named source at the Pentagon who is willing to come forward and discuss the issue. When that loon, Joe Wilson, came forward to accuse the President of lying about Saddam's attempts to buy yellowcake uranium in Niger, the press turned it into a fullblown scandal, yet when Joe Wilson was proved to be the one lying... Nothing. No attempt to apologize and very little effort to correct the public's perception.

But I digress.

Finally, the reason why Bush is not as quick as Kerry to throw out accusations is the fact that, as Presiden, Bush needs to maintain friendly relations with Russia, especially in the war on terror.

The truth, whatever it is, will come out, but a President, especially an American President, must be especially careful in that he says. Which is yet another reason why Kerry would not make a good president. The guy has already alienated at least 30 different nations, including Iraq, just trying to get elected.

The best Kerry can do now, should he be elected, is offer billion dollar contracts as bribes to other nations to get them involved in some capacity. Yeah, that's a good plan.

David

The best Kerry can do now, should he be elected, is offer billion dollar contracts as bribes to other nations to get them involved in some capacity. Yeah, that's a good plan.

And how would that be different from the way Bush collected the "Coalition of the Willing"? You think Eritrea was really that scared of Hussein? Yah.

The guy has already alienated at least 30 different nations, including Iraq, just trying to get elected.

wow! you mean there are some nations left that bush hasn't already alienated?

man, yoose guys are runnin' on fumes.

BHW - What did Bush do to bribe coalition partners? Lets use Eritrea as an example, or Australia, Japan, Britain, etc. Sure, we can offer economic incentives to some, but have we?

We have such a broad coalition in this case because these countries understand that Saddam was friendly to terrorists and that terrorism is a global problem that affects every single nation. They are helping in Iraq because they believe as we do, that a free and democratic Iraq will be a knife to the heart of global terrorism.

Thanks,

David

On the economic incentives, the answer is yes.

Australia wanted to sell more beef and butter in the US. Poland and others were looking to join the European Union and wanted US sponsorship. And then some, like Australia, got screwed when the promised trade deal was put into place ("they had alrady made their commitment, so what the hell, why not shaft them").

On your broad coalition claims, no. You have no way to know what you claim, and it's hard to believe that Micronesia, for example, joined because of a compelling fear of terrorists.

It's a Potemkin coalition and even those on the Right know it.

David, would that it were so.

But the more than two dozen countries that have offered some measure of backing to the United States have complex motives that in many cases have more to do with placating the world's only superpower -- or trading their support for huge sums in U.S. aid -- than with a desire to rid the world of Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction.

We dangled 2.3 billion.

Okay, something happened to the end of that last post.

We dangled 2.3 billion in front of Egypt.

Israel, $10 billion in grants and loans.

Turkey, $6 billion in grants and $20 billion more in loans.

But, you know, I'm sure all those coalition countries really would have been so "willing" to sign on without our financial aid packagkes, aren't you?

And insurgents in Iraq are asking you to vote for Kerry. Which one is more comforting to you?

Hmmm, let's see. The insurgents aren't in control of a powerful state apparatus. They aren't materially interfering in the elections of two large neighboring countries. They haven't outright invaded another neighbor to crack down on the independence movement. And they don't have a stockpile of nuclear weapons and ICBM's...

...unless they can buy the stuff. Like maybe from that guy who sold nuclear technology to Iran... Vladimir somebody... I think he used to be KGB, who I hear make the CIA look like amateurs.

Sorry, it was NATO (not the European Union) that Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia wanted to join.

Poland's president wanted to be named the next Secretary-General of NATO.

I don't know why countries like Costa Rica offered their names, but they provided neither resources nor forces.

And by the way, the Heritage Foundation said there were 54 countries, not the 30 being touted by the Right these days.

Where did Bush lose 24 countries?

I think Costa Rica eventually signed off, citing a conflict with its pacifist culture. I think.

Yes, Costa Rica left the "coalition" and will be sorely missed.

David, it appears even the Washington Times doesn't believe the story you quoted from.

I wanted to read all the details, there's only white space there. It looks like they erased it.

(Link opens in new window)

Further, the government now (just caught the tail end of a blurb on CNN) denies that there is any evidence of Russian involvement in the issue.

They also said that Shaw does not speak for the Pentagon, have no idea where he got his story.

Looks like another unfounded right-wing story from the Washington Times.

Since the Washington Times is the propaganda sheet of the Unification Church, why don't you pull from more reputable publications like The Weekly World News?

They've reported how NASA has been mooned from Mars, Tom Ridge has been robbed, and Donald Rumsfeld sleeps with a GI Joe doll. Oh, and Laura Bush is voting for Kerry.

How do I know the Bushites have lost any honest attempt to win this election? The Weekly World News is bashing them. The only way they will get to homebase is to steal. Even Batboy hates Bush.

What astounds me Flannel-man in your lumpy-grey union suit, and dish-towel as a cape, that you continue to post articles which are written for the delusional, dim-witted fellow-travellers, when the mast-head clearly states: A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics and technology.

Really, is this how poorly you perceive us? That if you post enough crap we might think what you lack in quality, you can make up in quantity? Don't you have some bit of shame? It's not like you'll just be kicked to the curb next week.

Flanagan the GOP Easter Bunny says: "...insurgents in Iraq are asking you to vote for Kerry."

From Shark's "AL Qaeda Endorses Bush":

[four days after the train bombing in Spain] "...the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade, a group claiming affiliation with Al Qaeda, sent a bombastic message to the London newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi, avowing responsibility for the train bombings.

"Who turn will it be next? Is it Japan, America, Italy, Britain, Saudi Arabia, or Australia?"

The message also addressed the speculation that the terrorists would try to replicate their political success in Spain by disrupting the November U.S. elections.

"We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections," the authors write. Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" are useful, the authors contend, for they stir the Islamic world."