A Culture of Cover-Ups
October 26, 2004 4:21 AM Subscribe
A Culture of Cover-Ups "...Although President Bush's campaign is based almost entirely on his self-proclaimed leadership in that war, his officials have thrown a shroud of secrecy over any information that might let voters assess his performance.
Yesterday we got two peeks under that shroud. One was The Times's report about what the International Atomic Energy Agency calls "the greatest explosives bonanza in history." Ignoring the agency's warnings, administration officials failed to secure the weapons site, Al Qaqaa, in Iraq, allowing 377 tons of deadly high explosives to be looted, presumably by insurgents..."
This post was deleted for the following reason: bah, op-ed
"NBC News: Miklaszewski: “April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al Qakaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon. In a letter this month, the Iraqi interim government told the International Atomic Energy Agency the high explosives were lost to theft and looting due to lack of security. Critics claim there were simply not enough U.S. troops to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles, weapons now being used by insurgents and terrorists to wage a guerrilla war in Iraq.” (NBC’s “Nightly News,” 10/25/04)"
In other words, NBC laid this claim to rest more than 6 months ago - but that isn't an issue with the NYT. So much for the "instant cover up" theory. Look, if Fox is biased (and they are) we have to admit that CBS and the NYT are certainly in the realm of biased as well.
Now, most on MeFi WON'T admit that... but it's still true.
Then again, it doesn't look like the truse is really much of an issue in this election what with Kerry claiming meetings he never had with the UN to try and look important and denying meetings he DID have to try and cover up how anti-US he was in his past.
Ah well, anything to win, right guys? :)
posted by soulhuntre at 5:21 AM on October 26, 2004
In other words, NBC laid this claim to rest more than 6 months ago - but that isn't an issue with the NYT. So much for the "instant cover up" theory. Look, if Fox is biased (and they are) we have to admit that CBS and the NYT are certainly in the realm of biased as well.
Now, most on MeFi WON'T admit that... but it's still true.
Then again, it doesn't look like the truse is really much of an issue in this election what with Kerry claiming meetings he never had with the UN to try and look important and denying meetings he DID have to try and cover up how anti-US he was in his past.
Ah well, anything to win, right guys? :)
posted by soulhuntre at 5:21 AM on October 26, 2004
Ah well, anything to win, right guys? :)
Bush vs. Kerry: No matter who wins...we lose.
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:50 AM on October 26, 2004
Bush vs. Kerry: No matter who wins...we lose.
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:50 AM on October 26, 2004
If it happened before the troops arrived, why didn't McClellan know this was old news yesterday?
MR. McCLELLAN: Maybe the best way to do this is kind of walk you through how we came to be informed about this. The Iraqi Interim Government informed -- told the IAEA -- the International Atomic Energy Agency on October 10th that there were approximately 350 tons of high explosives missing from Al Qaqaa in Iraq. And they informed the IAEA because these munitions were subject to IAEA monitoring, because they were considered dual-use materials. And the International Atomic Energy Agency informed the United States mission in Vienna on October 15th about these -- this cache of explosives that was missing because of some looting that went on in Iraq toward the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom, or during and toward the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Q When did the President find out?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said, we were informed on October 15th. Condi Rice was informed days after that. This is all in the last, what, 10 days now.
Q She was informed days after October 15th?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and she informed the President. And the first priority, from our standpoint, was to make sure that this wasn't a nuclear proliferation risk, which it is not. These are conventional high explosives that we are talking about. And the President wants to make sure that we get to the bottom of this. Now, the Pentagon, upon learning of this, directed the multinational forces and the Iraqi survey group to look into this matter, and that's what they are currently doing.
Now, if you go back and look at the Duelfer report that recently has come out, according to the Duelfer report, as of mid-September, more than 243,000 tons of munitions have been destroyed since Operation Iraqi Freedom. Coalition forces have cleared and reviewed a total of 10,033 caches of munitions; another nearly 163,000 tons of munitions have been secured and are on line to be destroyed. That puts this all -- that puts this all in context.
posted by emelenjr at 5:51 AM on October 26, 2004
MR. McCLELLAN: Maybe the best way to do this is kind of walk you through how we came to be informed about this. The Iraqi Interim Government informed -- told the IAEA -- the International Atomic Energy Agency on October 10th that there were approximately 350 tons of high explosives missing from Al Qaqaa in Iraq. And they informed the IAEA because these munitions were subject to IAEA monitoring, because they were considered dual-use materials. And the International Atomic Energy Agency informed the United States mission in Vienna on October 15th about these -- this cache of explosives that was missing because of some looting that went on in Iraq toward the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom, or during and toward the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Q When did the President find out?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said, we were informed on October 15th. Condi Rice was informed days after that. This is all in the last, what, 10 days now.
Q She was informed days after October 15th?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and she informed the President. And the first priority, from our standpoint, was to make sure that this wasn't a nuclear proliferation risk, which it is not. These are conventional high explosives that we are talking about. And the President wants to make sure that we get to the bottom of this. Now, the Pentagon, upon learning of this, directed the multinational forces and the Iraqi survey group to look into this matter, and that's what they are currently doing.
Now, if you go back and look at the Duelfer report that recently has come out, according to the Duelfer report, as of mid-September, more than 243,000 tons of munitions have been destroyed since Operation Iraqi Freedom. Coalition forces have cleared and reviewed a total of 10,033 caches of munitions; another nearly 163,000 tons of munitions have been secured and are on line to be destroyed. That puts this all -- that puts this all in context.
posted by emelenjr at 5:51 AM on October 26, 2004
soulhuntre, why doesn't the Pentagon or White House admit it then? You'd think they wouldn't still be saying that they only learned the other day, no?
And Bremer was told last year, according to the IAEA. The IAEA also said the seals on this stuff were intact a month before we invaded--this much stuff was all stolen in a month? (see TalkingPointsMemo for cites on this) This also brings up the point about Inspectors, and why we didn't let them finish the job.
posted by amberglow at 6:02 AM on October 26, 2004
And Bremer was told last year, according to the IAEA. The IAEA also said the seals on this stuff were intact a month before we invaded--this much stuff was all stolen in a month? (see TalkingPointsMemo for cites on this) This also brings up the point about Inspectors, and why we didn't let them finish the job.
posted by amberglow at 6:02 AM on October 26, 2004
So let's assume the TPM guy is right. During an invasion, during combat operations, the enemy managed to cart off supplies.
I am sort of confused about how this is supposed to be Bush's fault, or an issue in the election. It's only real relevence is showing how partisan the media has become.
Now, if it is supposed to be about lies, then I would think the Kerry "I met with the security council" fakery would be relevant.
"Bush vs. Kerry: No matter who wins...we lose."
Look on the bright side, even after Nov 2 we will have weeks and weeks of legal challenges as the process derails and now that MeFi has gone fully into "KerryFilter" mode it won't ever recover - so we'll have it forever.
posted by soulhuntre at 6:33 AM on October 26, 2004
I am sort of confused about how this is supposed to be Bush's fault, or an issue in the election. It's only real relevence is showing how partisan the media has become.
Now, if it is supposed to be about lies, then I would think the Kerry "I met with the security council" fakery would be relevant.
"Bush vs. Kerry: No matter who wins...we lose."
Look on the bright side, even after Nov 2 we will have weeks and weeks of legal challenges as the process derails and now that MeFi has gone fully into "KerryFilter" mode it won't ever recover - so we'll have it forever.
posted by soulhuntre at 6:33 AM on October 26, 2004
...and denying meetings he DID have to try and cover up how anti-US he was in his past.
soulhuntre, do you really think that any person against the Vietnam war is also anti-American? Do you really think that Jerome Corsi (of the Swift Boat liars) is someone whose word has any value? Do you really think that efforts to stop an unjust war is un-patriotic? Do you really think that anyone who worked (as a spy? Collaborator?) with communists would ever have the chance to be active in American politics, to the extend that he is running for president?
I don't know what your answer to all these questions is, but mine is definitely NO!
posted by acrobat at 6:36 AM on October 26, 2004
soulhuntre, do you really think that any person against the Vietnam war is also anti-American? Do you really think that Jerome Corsi (of the Swift Boat liars) is someone whose word has any value? Do you really think that efforts to stop an unjust war is un-patriotic? Do you really think that anyone who worked (as a spy? Collaborator?) with communists would ever have the chance to be active in American politics, to the extend that he is running for president?
I don't know what your answer to all these questions is, but mine is definitely NO!
posted by acrobat at 6:36 AM on October 26, 2004
And, yes, it looks like most MeFites are liberal people (better educated, more intelligent, more internationally minded, have travelled), but they are not blind followers of leaders. If Kerry succeeds, and then screws up, be sure MeFites will be the first to have a go at him. That's how I feel, anyway, after more than three years with this (our) lot.
posted by acrobat at 6:47 AM on October 26, 2004
posted by acrobat at 6:47 AM on October 26, 2004
First off, I gotta say, that Kerry-mentioning-wrong-security-council-members meme is the most laughable attempt at a hard-hitting campaign issue that I've seen since... well, Friday's "Wolves" ad. Keep hammering away at that!
What I'm not seeing discussed here is how there's no version of this story that exonerates the Bush administration. The explosives are missing. They were confirmed to be there by the IAEA right before the war was launched. So either a) they were still there when we got there and our failure to guard the site is gross incompetence, or b) they were dispersed by Saddam's regime while we were marching to Baghdad, meaning that our launching of the War to Keep America Safe From Terrorists was the trigger to turn this stuff over to terrorists.
Though I have to admit Josh's analysis of the situation seems much more credible to me (if they were missing when we got there, howcum this is the first Scottie's heard of it?) this is all kind of a red herring. Sure, the failure to guard a site that was secure when we arrived would be an even grosser level of incompetence, but folks, it's gross enough no matter which way you slice it.
posted by soyjoy at 6:57 AM on October 26, 2004
What I'm not seeing discussed here is how there's no version of this story that exonerates the Bush administration. The explosives are missing. They were confirmed to be there by the IAEA right before the war was launched. So either a) they were still there when we got there and our failure to guard the site is gross incompetence, or b) they were dispersed by Saddam's regime while we were marching to Baghdad, meaning that our launching of the War to Keep America Safe From Terrorists was the trigger to turn this stuff over to terrorists.
Though I have to admit Josh's analysis of the situation seems much more credible to me (if they were missing when we got there, howcum this is the first Scottie's heard of it?) this is all kind of a red herring. Sure, the failure to guard a site that was secure when we arrived would be an even grosser level of incompetence, but folks, it's gross enough no matter which way you slice it.
posted by soyjoy at 6:57 AM on October 26, 2004
I am sort of confused about how this is supposed to be Bush's fault, or an issue in the election.
You're so right.
How could anything that went wrong related to the actions of the U.S. armed forces be a reflection on the Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces, eh?
Is that what you meant to say? No doubt that's what Bush wants to say....that nothing related to the quagmire that he personally led this nation into was his doing.
He is running continually from his record....as are his supporters. Pathetic.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 7:11 AM on October 26, 2004
You're so right.
How could anything that went wrong related to the actions of the U.S. armed forces be a reflection on the Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces, eh?
Is that what you meant to say? No doubt that's what Bush wants to say....that nothing related to the quagmire that he personally led this nation into was his doing.
He is running continually from his record....as are his supporters. Pathetic.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 7:11 AM on October 26, 2004
there were simply not enough U.S. troops to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles, weapons now being used by insurgents and terrorists to wage a guerrilla war in Iraq.
NBC laid this claim to rest more than 6 months ago
that does not sound like laying a claim to rest to me. what are you, some kind of illiterate asshole?
posted by quonsar at 7:13 AM on October 26, 2004
NBC laid this claim to rest more than 6 months ago
that does not sound like laying a claim to rest to me. what are you, some kind of illiterate asshole?
posted by quonsar at 7:13 AM on October 26, 2004
I am sort of confused ...
to put it kindly
Intel dump:
Analysis: The "fire" metaphor is probably overused and trite by now, but I think it's still the best one for explaining the significance of this report. Think of the Iraqi insurgency as a fire. A fire requires three things — combustible material, oxygen, and a spark — known as the triad. An insurgency also requires three things — men, warfighting materiel, and a spark, provided by ideology. ("Every idea is an incitement." — Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes) What this report makes clear is how easy it was to find warfighting materiel in Iraq after the end of major combat operations. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or explosives expert, to figure out that this stuff is now being used against us in the form of IEDs on the roads of Iraq.
I can't put this point bluntly enough: our failure to provide effective security in the early days of the post-war aftermath allowed this materiel to be looted. The effect of that failure is that the insurgents were able to acquire significant amounts of high-quality explosives. They are now using that material against us. It would be hard to find a more clear case of how our failure to plan for the post-war aftermath set the conditions for the Iraqi insurgency, and allowed that insurgency to gain strength...
To quote the SecDef, there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. I'd say this falls squarely into the category of known unknowns now — we know what was at Al Qa Qaa, but we don't know (and probably cannot know with any fidelity) what happened to it. It's very possible that these explosives disappeared in the fog of war. I don't doubt for a second they are being used against us to this day as the explosive ingredient for IEDs and car bombs. But if these reports from NBC and the Pentagon are true, there really isn't anyone in the U.S. government to blame for this material going loose. If anything, this corroborates a theory that I've held for some time — that it was the intent of the Iraqi military all along to go to ground in the face of the U.S. advance, and to fight for their country as an insurgency. In many ways, that's a worse scenario than what the first reports sketched out, because it indicates a far greater level of sophistication to this enemy.
posted by y2karl at 7:32 AM on October 26, 2004
to put it kindly
Intel dump:
Analysis: The "fire" metaphor is probably overused and trite by now, but I think it's still the best one for explaining the significance of this report. Think of the Iraqi insurgency as a fire. A fire requires three things — combustible material, oxygen, and a spark — known as the triad. An insurgency also requires three things — men, warfighting materiel, and a spark, provided by ideology. ("Every idea is an incitement." — Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes) What this report makes clear is how easy it was to find warfighting materiel in Iraq after the end of major combat operations. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or explosives expert, to figure out that this stuff is now being used against us in the form of IEDs on the roads of Iraq.
I can't put this point bluntly enough: our failure to provide effective security in the early days of the post-war aftermath allowed this materiel to be looted. The effect of that failure is that the insurgents were able to acquire significant amounts of high-quality explosives. They are now using that material against us. It would be hard to find a more clear case of how our failure to plan for the post-war aftermath set the conditions for the Iraqi insurgency, and allowed that insurgency to gain strength...
To quote the SecDef, there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. I'd say this falls squarely into the category of known unknowns now — we know what was at Al Qa Qaa, but we don't know (and probably cannot know with any fidelity) what happened to it. It's very possible that these explosives disappeared in the fog of war. I don't doubt for a second they are being used against us to this day as the explosive ingredient for IEDs and car bombs. But if these reports from NBC and the Pentagon are true, there really isn't anyone in the U.S. government to blame for this material going loose. If anything, this corroborates a theory that I've held for some time — that it was the intent of the Iraqi military all along to go to ground in the face of the U.S. advance, and to fight for their country as an insurgency. In many ways, that's a worse scenario than what the first reports sketched out, because it indicates a far greater level of sophistication to this enemy.
posted by y2karl at 7:32 AM on October 26, 2004
I don't see how this is going to legitimately get blamed on the Clinton administration.
That's the only reason I can think of for why no one bothered to lock up all those tons of explosives. It must be the liberal democrat's fault, not our Commander in Perfection, Mr. Dubya.
Nope, just because he's been supposedly running the country for three years doesn't mean that he is ultimately responsible for everything.
Or wait, oh yeah, it does. Never mind.
How much more pathetic no-one-at-the-wheel news do people need before they realize that Bush has been absent most of the time and just pretends everything's a-ok the rest of the time?
posted by fenriq at 7:46 AM on October 26, 2004
That's the only reason I can think of for why no one bothered to lock up all those tons of explosives. It must be the liberal democrat's fault, not our Commander in Perfection, Mr. Dubya.
Nope, just because he's been supposedly running the country for three years doesn't mean that he is ultimately responsible for everything.
Or wait, oh yeah, it does. Never mind.
How much more pathetic no-one-at-the-wheel news do people need before they realize that Bush has been absent most of the time and just pretends everything's a-ok the rest of the time?
posted by fenriq at 7:46 AM on October 26, 2004
I wonder if that little plaque that says "The Buck Stops Here" is still on the oval office desk, or if Bush had it sent to Gitmo as an enemy combatant.
How anyone can defend this administration with a straight face or a clear conscious is literally astounding to me. Stunning. And frightening.
How could anything that went wrong related to the actions of the U.S. armed forces be a reflection on the Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces
Wow.
f&m becomes a voice of reason and rationality.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:24 AM on October 26, 2004
How anyone can defend this administration with a straight face or a clear conscious is literally astounding to me. Stunning. And frightening.
How could anything that went wrong related to the actions of the U.S. armed forces be a reflection on the Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces
Wow.
f&m becomes a voice of reason and rationality.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:24 AM on October 26, 2004
"soulhuntre, do you really think that any person against the Vietnam war is also anti-American?"
Not at all. In fact I am sure many of them were extremely patriotic. Clearly men of good intent can disagree about that war (and others).
However at some point ones actions are so clearly detremental to the interests of the nation (meeting with enemy leaders, acting as an information conduit for them and so on) that the only reason one would do them is to hurt the nation or out of ignorance. Now, obviously many here feel that applies to Bush as well, and thats the core the issue in this election.
I believe Kerrys actions during his post service days were recklessly naive or actively anti-us. Obviously others feel they were dead on and that Bush is the one in that position. :: shrugs :: welcome to a free country :)
"How could anything that went wrong related to the actions of the U.S. armed forces be a reflection on the Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces
So every tactical mistake, every flat tire, every lost dog, every stray bullet and every missed opportunity is a direct and literal responsability of George Bush? Does this also apply to Clinton cause a lot of stuff went wrong for him too. Will this apply to a Kerry presidency? Will he become instantly ont he hook for every stray bomb and mistaken attack?
Look, you want to argue whether the war is good or bad? Thats the president. Whether a specific ammo cache was int he right place on a target priority list drawn up by military commanders and not reviewed directly by the President is his fault I find a bit of a reach.
Then again, this is MeFi.... so the obvious consensus is "it's Bushs fault" for everything bad on earth.
"Kerry succeeds, and then screws up, be sure MeFites will be the first to have a go at him."
Not a prayer. If Kerry wins you see a year of masterbatory Bush bashing and then a lot of "poor Kerry, he inherited such a mess" leading up the the full on support of his re-election bid.
posted by soulhuntre at 9:08 AM on October 26, 2004
Not at all. In fact I am sure many of them were extremely patriotic. Clearly men of good intent can disagree about that war (and others).
However at some point ones actions are so clearly detremental to the interests of the nation (meeting with enemy leaders, acting as an information conduit for them and so on) that the only reason one would do them is to hurt the nation or out of ignorance. Now, obviously many here feel that applies to Bush as well, and thats the core the issue in this election.
I believe Kerrys actions during his post service days were recklessly naive or actively anti-us. Obviously others feel they were dead on and that Bush is the one in that position. :: shrugs :: welcome to a free country :)
"How could anything that went wrong related to the actions of the U.S. armed forces be a reflection on the Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces
So every tactical mistake, every flat tire, every lost dog, every stray bullet and every missed opportunity is a direct and literal responsability of George Bush? Does this also apply to Clinton cause a lot of stuff went wrong for him too. Will this apply to a Kerry presidency? Will he become instantly ont he hook for every stray bomb and mistaken attack?
Look, you want to argue whether the war is good or bad? Thats the president. Whether a specific ammo cache was int he right place on a target priority list drawn up by military commanders and not reviewed directly by the President is his fault I find a bit of a reach.
Then again, this is MeFi.... so the obvious consensus is "it's Bushs fault" for everything bad on earth.
"Kerry succeeds, and then screws up, be sure MeFites will be the first to have a go at him."
Not a prayer. If Kerry wins you see a year of masterbatory Bush bashing and then a lot of "poor Kerry, he inherited such a mess" leading up the the full on support of his re-election bid.
posted by soulhuntre at 9:08 AM on October 26, 2004
So every tactical mistake, every flat tire, every lost dog, every stray bullet and every missed opportunity is a direct and literal responsability of George Bush? Does this also apply to Clinton cause a lot of stuff went wrong for him too. Will this apply to a Kerry presidency? Will he become instantly ont he hook for every stray bomb and mistaken attack?
It was applied to Clinton nonstop for 8 years. What's so hard about understanding that ALL presidents get the responsibility and the blame for everything, especially things they initiate--like WARS. Especially wars. This is not an affair, or a real-estate deal. This is a WAR, with no exit strategy, and no strategy at all, apparently.
posted by amberglow at 9:23 AM on October 26, 2004
It was applied to Clinton nonstop for 8 years. What's so hard about understanding that ALL presidents get the responsibility and the blame for everything, especially things they initiate--like WARS. Especially wars. This is not an affair, or a real-estate deal. This is a WAR, with no exit strategy, and no strategy at all, apparently.
posted by amberglow at 9:23 AM on October 26, 2004
« Older Polling truth | Sad day for music. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
but Taling Points counters this. See:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
posted by Postroad at 4:28 AM on October 26, 2004