Talk:Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Asking "when were the weapons removed?" is the wrong question, and does nothing but cloud the issue. The real question is "Why wasn't the facility hit with an air strike during the air war and destroyed, *before* the invasion?" Destroying the enemies weapons stores is a central tenet in the art of war, and these weapons were well documented. It is gross deriliction of duty to allow a site like this to remain vulnerable to looting, and yet another example of the massive incompetence with which this war was executed.

Can anyone provide a good reason to have left this facility intact?

Were there any nearby structures that would present an unacceptably high number of civilian casualties? Was there a possibility of chemical or toxic weapons in the plants that could have been released into the atmosphere? I don't know, that's why I'm asking - though it sounds like a valid point not to hit it. - James 21:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

On October 28, 2004, the IAEA said it warned the United States about the vulnerability of explosives stored at Al-Qaqaa after Iraq's Tuwaitha nuclear complex was looted. "After we heard reports of looting at the Tuwaitha site in April 2003, the agency's chief Iraq inspectors alerted American officials that we were concerned about the security of the high explosives stored at Al-Qaqaa," IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming told the Associated Press. She did not say which officials were notified or exactly when. [1]

About 380 tons of RDX and HMX, used in making such arms, were reported missing from the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility, though the Pentagon and an embedded NBC News correspondent said the facility appeared to have been emptied by the time U.S. forces got there. [] --Washington Times

Yes, that's why it says in the Timeline, "Internal IAEA memorandum reportedly warns that terrorists might be helping "themselves to the greatest explosives bonanza in history."" ;-) If someone were to actually produce those documents or confirm who it came to, it should be upgraded from "reportedly" to whatever. Sbwoodside 19:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Democrats, which I suppose includes whoever's writing this article, keep implying that US troops got to Al Qaqaa and then didn't bother to check up on the 380 tons of explosives.

The news reports I've heard, plus the Wikipedia article (before I started correcting it), say or hint that the 3rd Division just breezed into town and remained oblivious -- which is Bush's fault for letting the Pentagon ignore the noble, selfless and utterly trustworthy IAEA.

To make it worse, when the 101st Division got there, they discovered that all the explosives had been looted since the arrival of the the 3rd Division.

Well, the facts don't all point to this point of view, so this POV should not be reported in the Wikipedia as an 'undisputed fact' and put in a timeline as if everyone knew it.

I'm not going to fix the entire article. I simply don't have time. But if there is anyone who believes in accuracy AND the Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I'll thank them to put in BOTH SIDES of the story. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 15:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm the original author of (and followup author of most of) the summary, HE, facilities, and timelines sections (not the overview). I think you must be referring to the overview section though. Just to be clear, I have VERY high standards, which means that I think that everything must be either from original documents (in other words, first hand accounts that were documented, such as contemporary IAEA media advisories, video footage, or documents such as satellite photos); from multiple-sourced media reports (i.e. not just multiple stories but stories with different sources); under these circumstances. Some small amount of other stuff (some accounts that were first-hand but given after the fact) gets in with the qualification "reportedly".
Anyway, at the moment I don't have the time to deal with the "overview" section which as I said was written by someone else. The issues you discuss seem to apply only to that section. Sbwoodside 19:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So a single IAEA statement has credibility, but not a single statement from a US army soldier? Sounds like anti-US bias to me. Why not just balance the 2 points of view?

Have you looked at the IAEA material? I (personally) do not consider an IAEA statement to have any more credibility than a Pentagon statement. However I do consider an official IAEA statement to have more credibility than a soldier's statement (from anyone's army). NPOV doesn't come from providing two POVs (two wrongs don't make a right). We must evaluate the material that is available against reasonable yardsticks ourselves, not just repeat the verbiage brought forth by different factions.
However, the IAEA material I have based many of the timeline points on is not a statement. One of the (group of) sources I reviewed consist of dozens of media releases and daily summaries released by the IAEA and UNMOVIC at the time (contemporaneously, as it were). These are still archived online, and can also be verified at a bunch of 3rd party sites. These were of course released long before the controversy began. I have also reviewed, IAEA and UNMOVIC speeches to the Security Council, and media coverage of IAEA statements to the press to make sure that they match the other documents.Sbwoodside 01:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind if you say "reportedly", as long as people stop deleting the dozens of quotes I keep finding which balance the UN/Kerry point of view. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 20:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I deleted one, because I didn't think it belonged in the summary (as it was fairly particular). Next time I'll move it instead. Sbwoodside 01:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] UN vs. US

If the dispute is between the UN and US versions of what happened, then please allow the article to provide a balance between the POVs of both those sides.

And if both those sides agree on a point, don't just consider it a given: say that both sides agree.

"according to the IAEA" ... also according to US government. it's not a disputed fact.

Just because it's not a dispute doesn't mean it shouldn't be documented. Every part of this which we can find a source for (or 2 different sources, as you said above), should be documented. Don't you think so? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 20:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. How about, that for the dispute elements, they will be gathered together into a section of the article that is on the subject of disputed elements. As you say there is much that is either undisputable due to primary evidence, and/or is totally agreed upon.
As for the question if there is a dispute between UN and US (government). I do not believe this to be the case. There are certainly some people who would paint it that way, but overall I think that, despite the rhetoric, the major details stated as facts by the IAEA and the US govt are not disputed by the other side (the Iraq govt on the other hand, disagrees with the US in the statement that they were definitely taken post-invasion). So, I think the appropriate response (personally) is in the timeline to stick to the facts -- which up until the KSTP footage came out left it open (now to re-evaluate). Sbwoodside 01:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The explosives were "lost"

The explosives were in fact lost. No one knows where they are. The word "removed" is inadequate because it indicates that we know factually who removed them.

[edit] Ventilation shaft

Removed:

  • Ventilation shafts serving the facility remained open and provided easy access to the explosives, according to the IAEA. [2]

Two reasons. (1) IAEA is notorious for being extradorinarly anal about sealing things with thier little tamper evident seal, it is very unlikely that they would have noticed this and not taken action after noticing it (some thing which the report does not say did or did not happen). (2) Only one openly right wing news source is reporting it. Pdbailey 03:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A check of google news e.g. [3] would show that's not quite the case. It would seem, though, that the IAEA also didnt think this was much of a problem (perhaps they were so small it would have been too difficult to remove the tonnes this way) Sbwoodside 06:18, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I did that same search when I posted and got only FN results. Now I see that ABC is covering it as wel... I'll add it back in with an ABC link. Pdbailey 15:30, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] moved timeline to Al Qa'qaa high explosives timeline

This article is ballooning with political items, who said what, who claims what, and so on. I'm not particularly interested in that. I'm interested in what actually happened prior to when the NYT story came out. So I restored the Al Qa'qaa high explosives timeline article and moved the timeline back from here to there. Hopefully we can keep documenting the political diatribes here and document the chain of events leading to the loss there.

Considering the size of this article, I don't think it's too much splitting - my opinion.

I wonder about the wisedom of this move, I think it deemphasizes what is probably the best portion of this article for exactly the reason you gave. Why not just police it for NPOV? Pdbailey 23:04, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality vs. objectivity

"NPOV doesn't come from providing two POVs (two wrongs don't make a right)."

Actually, that is the textbook definition of NPOV. When there is a dispute over facts, the Wikipedia's official policy is to present each major point of view.

The alternative, which is to try to find the objective truth -- which we can then endorse, leads only to endless edit wars and has therefore been declared as contrary to policy. I can state this quite confidently, as a senior admin; I'm user #188: I've been around almost since the beginning of the project. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Other facilities

Correct me if I'm wrong; but wasn't Al Qaqaa one of several such facilities looted after the US invasion? It was my understanding that there were many such lootings and that the 380 tons looted at al Qaqaa was just the tip of the iceberg.--csloat 05:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Whats the latest then?

I will look on BBC etc. Anyone know the outcome from the "investigation"? -max rspct 00:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Election is long over is anyone researching this?

This article is long overdue for a rewrite. There is no more need for electioneering here, and the issues surrounding al Qaqaa can be sorted out in a clearer manner instead of having two sides and a valiant but inaccurate attempt at "balance." Nobody seriously contends anymore that the weapons were removed prior to the US arrival. There is a quote on the page about the US having accounted for the weapons, but where are they then? If that were the case, the US could quickly put an end to this "controversy" by producing the evidence. This page makes it seem as if it were a big mystery where the weapons are and whether they were looted before or after the fall of Saddam but it's pretty clear where they are now; in the hands of insurgents. There is also the issue of weapons from other facilities, including nuclear material that went missing after the looting (I will need to re-research this point; it has been a while). But the nuclear stuff didn't get the media coverage that al-Qaqaa did because of the timing (it was discovered 2003 and forgotten by the election). My big objection here is that the article was mostly written before the 2004 election, and it sounds as if the only important issue here is the effect this will have on the election. Well, the election is over; what is the result of the investigation Bush allegedly was waiting for? The NYT reported in 2005 that insurgents looted the facility systematically, with organized trucks and people who obviously knew where the weapons were -- these were weapons that were under IAEA control under Saddam. I think it was in Dec. 2004 that they found a letter confirming that an Iraqi official sent Saddam a letter suggesting looting those explosives for suicide bombers to use in response to the US invasion. There is no question at all anymore that the weapons were stolen by Baathist insurgents, I don't think.--csloat 09:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TDC's edits

TDC's recent edits deleted relevant and sourced material and changed the wording ofanother paragraph in order to push a POV that is not supported in any current reports about this situation. If he had actually followed the discussion on this page he would have noted my comments above; the election is over, and there is no reason to continue using this page for electioneering. It's 2006 now! There has been no U.S. investigation, and all the evidence since Oct 2004 has shown that the weapons were looted after the invasion. If you think the facts are different, please cite published sources on this issue rather than just using this page as a front to win an election (that you guys already won!).--csloat 23:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

First, Frank Rich is not a fountain of truth, and nothing could support the following statement:
"It has since become clear that the explosives were removed after invading US forces captured the facility."
Then we have the rediculous "Evidence for removal prior to US arrival" vs "Claims of removal prior to US arrival". If evidence is suitable for the con, then its suitable for the pro, this is a no brainer.
So take your own advice, the election is over, Kerry lost, get over it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Nobody called anyone a 'fountain of truth' except you. Frank Rich is simply summarizing what the NYT reported, which has never been refuted, since it was reported in 3/05, i.e. after the election. the right wing gave up on the bogus argument after the election, as you would know if you would read the rest of this talk page. It was confirmed that the weapons were taken after the invasion and there is no "evidence" to the contrary; simply 'claims' that turned out to be false. Why are you resurrecting election propaganda that was even abandoned by Bush? Now please stop the nonsense, unless you actually have any published info later than 3/05 on this issue.--csloat 04:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry sloat, but your argument is less than convincing. The KSTP story specifically states that the crew did not go into any IAEA sealed bunkers, and the shots they do show with the 101st show them breaking chains into bunkers, but no IAEA seals. As far as the NY Times piece goes, it is a news story, so to use it to definitively say one way or the other what really happened is misleading at best. Considering that there is photographic evidence that Russian generals Vladislav Achalov and Igor Maltsev were in Iraq days before the start of the invasion [4], there is reason to believe that they had a hand in removing equipment, perhaps at as Shaw claims, perhaps not, but it does pass the WP:V requirement. After all, they did not “fly to Baghdad to drink coffee”. This also appears to confirm what Gertz wrote back in 2004. Considering that it would have taken dozens of trucks to remove this much material, ordinary looters could not have pulled this off, and I doubt it could have occurred after the US troops were in the area.[ http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2&issue=20060306] I know, its not from Wayne Madsen, but what can I say?
Why do you keep insisting that Wayne madsen has anything to do with any of this? Are you just so excited that you were once right about something that you have to keep reminding people even in places where it is totally irrelevant? As for the KTSP story, this does not have anything to do with this as far as I can tell -- your problem seems to be with the Frank Rich quote summarizing the LAT and NYT pieces that were reported after the election. Your claim that we can not use a news story definitively to say one thing or another is silly; I presume you prefer a frontpage summary of an unverifiable book? You can't just delete news reports you don't like. The idea that because Russian generals are there they must have had a hand in moving weapons is as ludicrous as reasoning that because a star appears in a CIA book that it was Valerie Plame's fault he or she got killed. As far as you "doubting" that this could have happened, your doubts are neither relevant or encyclopedic. We have eyewitnesses both US and Iraqi who contradict your Madsenesque "logic." By the way, you're right, IBD isn't Madsen, but it is the source of the claim that an "Iraqi intelligence manual" proved al Qaeda ties... the so-called manual was a web page from the Federation of American Scientists from 1997.--csloat 23:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Wayne Madsen has everything to do with the bar you place on your sources, but its just an observation on my part. The KTSP story has everything to do with it, because the video footage does not show IAEA seals at the site. Christopher Andrew is not at issue here, and has a much finer academic reputation than you will ever have I might add. A book from a widely respected academic (even the Nation Magazine has had nice things to say about Andrew) does not even exist on the same plane as 99.9995% of newspaper stories, including this one. We have no eyewitness, only second and third hand reports from the NY Times and LA Times and they should be treated as such, non-definitive. The “letters from Frank Rich to the Corinthians” are also not notable in this case. Rich is a talking head DNC opinion machine, and he has no expertise on this issue, only a lot of posturing. The fact that Russian generals were there goes to support one of Shaws claim that, well, the Russian military was in Iraq just before the invasion. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How many times must I concede I was wrong about Madsen? I knew nothing of him before you pointed the stuff out. I am not interested in your estimation of my reputation, nor am I interested in hearing more about how you are now tracking my IPs to learn my name, my home address, my place of work, or my academic reputation. I'm just not interested in anything you have to say about those things, and they are not relevant to the discussion; you are again just trying to intimidate. We have eyewitnesses who spoke to the LATimes and NYTimes; your insistence on keeping them out of wikipedia is pure censorship. Frank Rich summarizes those two articles; if you would like to quote from them directly perhaps we can remove the quote but otherwise it stays. The article on Russian generals does not mention this incident at all; any connection to it is original research. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy concerning original research before continuing this silly edit war. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collective endeavor, not a game of oneupsmanship.--csloat 00:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The paranoia is getting to you. I have not "tracked" anything pal, and I am tired of you accusing me of "real life" stalking, instead of the garden veriety internet kind that you have pulled on many a user. If you are not interested in them, I think you should stop bringing them up as much as you do ... mabey its an id thing though .... I really dont know. As far as the Russian generals, I have provided another article from what appears to be a real media source. Frank Rich provides commentary, nothing more, and he has had a less than stellar record in either the accuracy or reason department, but he is an "opinion" writer. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You're the one who keeps bringing up such personal things; I am just asking you to stop. If "what appears to be a real media source" yet turns out to be a blog that can't distinguish between the Mukhabarat and the Federation of American Scientists is a good enough source for you, well, that's interesting. As for Frank Rich, he is quoted because he (accurately) cites the facts from the two articles, LAT and NYT, and the article here states clearly that he is asserting his opinion, so I see no reason to delete that quote. --csloat 05:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
No, Rich is citing “claims”, not facts. There is a difference between the two, and for the life of me, I cannot understand why don’t understand that. Un-named sources are by their very definition unverifiable. And, once again, Rich's opinion on the issue is non notable. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You're being intentionally obtuse now? Rich is citing the fact that the NYT and LAT reported what they reported. And for the life of me, I cannot understand why [you] don't understand that. Stop reverting TDC. I also see that you have now taken to inserting known disinformation (e.g. the NBC report) in the article. I'll be correcting your changes.--csloat 18:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, your edits are blatantly deceptive. You keep deleting the LAT article along with the Rich quote. Do not use your dislike of the Rich source as a cover for censoring information you find uncomfortable. Thanks.--csloat 18:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
As stated previously, the LA Times story falls under a claim not a verifiable fact. Citing it as a fact, and is already mentioned in one portion of the article, by you I might add. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not about what categories you want to put various claims in -- call it a claim or fact as you please; just stop deleting it.--csloat 22:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How does this play into the article?

Iraqi officials may be overstating the amount of explosives reported to have disappeared from a weapons depot, documents obtained by ABC News show. The Iraqi interim government has told the United States and international weapons inspectors that 377 tons of conventional explosives are missing from the Al-Qaqaa installation, which was supposed to be under U.S. military control. But International Atomic Energy Agency documents obtained by ABC News and first reported on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" indicate the amount of missing explosives may be substantially less than the Iraqis reported. The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing — presumably stolen due to a lack of security — was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility. But the 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. The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003. [5]

[edit] Good edit

Documentary evidence -- a letter from former Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri (who was also working for the CIA at the time) to deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein "suggests taking the HMX from underground bunkers where it had been kept under seal by the International Atomic Energy Agency and giving it to suicide bombers."[13] The letter was written on 4 April 2003.

That was a nice contribution, but apparently you put it under the wrong header. If the 3ID was not at Al-Qaqaa until the 3rd 2003 and the letter was written on April 4th 2003, It would appear that the material was removed before hand, as a further reading of the source suggests:

It now appears that senior officials in the Iraqi government were discussing the removal of the HMX before the fall of Saddam. The letter from Dr Sabri, obtained by The Independent, was sent on 4 April 2003 as US tanks were advancing on Baghdad. It said that the world was getting the impression that Iraqi civilians were co-operating with American soldiers.[6]

And this was written by Patrick Cockburn to boot! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

lol... the letter was written 4/4, which is after the US invasion. the letter was written before the weapons were looted, obviously. --csloat 20:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Really? Thats not what the article says. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Really. It is.--csloat 23:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Ahem:
It now appears that senior officials in the Iraqi government were discussing the removal of the HMX before the fall of Saddam. The letter from Dr Sabri, obtained by The Independent, was sent on 4 April 2003 as US tanks were advancing on Baghdad. It said that the world was getting the impression that Iraqi civilians were co-operating with American soldiers.[7]?
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Ahem. They were discussing the removal before the fall of Saddam. Discussing. Before. (5 days before, to be precise). The letter suggested the removal of the weapons, which indicates it had not happened yet. You do not suggest things that have already happened. "A letter to Saddam from Dr Naji Sabri, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, five days before the fall of Baghdad, suggests taking the HMX from underground bunkers, where it had been kept under seal by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and giving it to suicide bombers." The letter suggests it as a good idea. It has not happened yet. I should not have to explain this to you.--csloat 23:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sections on Evidence For & Against

I'm going to suggest that the "evidence" sections be removed entirely after the information is incorporated into the narrative below. The representation of this as a debate with two sides that is still ongoing is absolutely fallacious. Nobody at all has been arguing in any published source since Nov. 2004 that the weapons were removed before the US invasion. Nobody. The arguments made before the election were contradictory -- they said the US moved the explosives, then they said the Iraqis took them before the invasion (both can't be true, and the first should be verifiable, but no evidence was presented). It's clear it was an election strategy to defeat the story, which is fine -- that's to be expected. But the election is over, and nobody in the public sphere is pretending anymore that the admin's stories are true. We can include a section indicating there was a dispute about this during the election, but wikipedia is meant to withstand the test of time; I'm hoping we can move beyond this silly right-wing/left-wing breakdown of such issues.--csloat 23:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I dont think I like that idea much. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This is the problem. TDC doesn't "talk it out"; he simply rejects the other side and then censors whatever information he is displeased with.--csloat 23:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the edit war please

I'm going to ask you again to please stop reverting TDC. Every change has been refuted. Let's go one by one:

  1. . The LAT article you keep deleting and hiding this deletion under #2. You haven't given a reason to censor this article, you just point out that it's not a "fact." That is not at issue; the LAT is clearly cited as a source of information.
  2. . The Frank Rich quote -- if you have a quote to counter it, post it. If you have quotes or summaries of the points he is making that can be put in instead, we can take out the quote. But stop removing it; that is pure censorship and not too far from vandalism.
  3. . The "documentary evidence" -- you keep moving it, insisting it says the opposite of what it says. Please read it more carefully.
  4. . Pentagon official section -- your summary is inferior; it makes it sound as if the fellow is anonymous in his daily life.
  5. . NYT quote -- you keep censoring it, asserting that you understand what the video shows better than the NYT. That's nice, but that's original research. Check WP:NOR for more information on this topic.

Now, please stop reverting.--csloat 23:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

I agree it's a good idea, but the page protection should not be a move to favor one version of the page. I have been trying to insist on talking this out from the beginning! I have justified every part of the article that TDC wants to change and even summarized the points above with numbers so they are easy to understand. TDC insists on censoring information that he doesn't like, in one case claiming his own perceptions are more valid as wikipedia sources than published articles in the NYT!--csloat 23:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC) (Just to cite WP policy on this -- "If a page is protected because of an edit war, please do not ask for it to be protected in some other version than it currently is. A protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Instead, go to the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute."Wikipedia:Protection_policy-csloat 23:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I started an RfC on this page because perhaps other users will help bring some sanity. The two disputed versions are the csloat version and the TDC version. (Here's a diff). The differences are explained above but I will make the explanations more substantive for those just seeing this for the first time:

1) TDC deletes the following:

Evidence that has emerged since the election has indicated that the explosives were most likely removed after invading US forces captured the facility. The looting was witnessed by U.S. Army reservists and National Guardsman from separate units as well as officials of the new Iraqi government.[8]

I believe this is a properly sourced statement that should not be deleted. (csloat)

Makes a definative factual conlcusion based off the sources, and emphasizes that conclusion. Leads reader to beleive one thing when informationin later portions of the article does noes not support the conlcusion. Violates NPOV style. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Evidence has indicated removal was most likely after the invasion. You think there should be more weasel words? If you want to change it stylistically then please do so but do not delete it. --csloat 21:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Evidence has indicated removal was most likely after the invasion according to. Its not about weasel words, its about attribution, something which you fail to do. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Then add "according to" if you like, but do not delete factual, substantiated claims. That's all I'm asking here.-csloat 20:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

2) TDC deletes the following:

Frank Rich editorialized in the New York Times (May 15, 2005):
It's also because of incompetent Pentagon planning that other troops may now be victims of weapons looted from Saddam's munitions depots after the fall of Baghdad. Yet when The New York Times reported one such looting incident, in Al Qaqaa, before the election, the administration and many in the blogosphere reflexively branded the story fraudulent. But the story was true. It was later corroborated not only by United States Army reservists and national guardsmen who spoke to The Los Angeles Times but also by Iraq's own deputy minister of industry, who told The New York Times two months ago that Al Qaqaa was only one of many such weapon caches hijacked on America's undermanned post-invasion watch.

I believe it should stay in as it summarizes the NYT and LAT reports on this issue. TDC deletes it because he doesn't like Frank Rich's opinion -- that is fine but it is clearly indicated as opinion; also, I have said over and over I would be happy to have that deleted if it is replaced with the same information from the sources themselves rather than just censored.(csloat)

Rich is not notable here, as his is primarily an opinion columnist, and nothing more. Including a blockquote from his editorial seriously skews the POV of the article. (TDC)
Again, if you don't like Rich, please write a summary of these points but do not simply remove the facts. POV is not about how big a quote you use. The statement is clear that Frank rich editorialized, so there is not a POV problem in the way this is stated.--csloat 21:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Rich has no qualifications or notability to occupy such a large portion of the article with this cut and paste blockquote. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You're just repeating your assertion again. Please read my comment carefully. Thanks.-csloat 20:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

3) TDC moves the quote below from "Evidence against the claim of removal prior to US invasion" to the opposite category:

  • Documentary evidence -- a letter from former Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri (who was also a CIA asset at the time[9]) to deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein "suggests taking the HMX from underground bunkers where it had been kept under seal by the International Atomic Energy Agency and giving it to suicide bombers."[10] The letter was written on 4 April 2003.

To me, this statement clearly indicates the letter suggested a future course of action from 4/4, when the US invasion was well underway -- one does not "suggest" something that one already did. TDC seems to think the letter indicates the opposite, somehow.(csloat)

As illustrated above, the source is being grossly taken out of context.
"It now appears that senior officials in the Iraqi government were discussing the removal of the HMX before the fall of Saddam. The letter from Dr Sabri, obtained by The Independent, was sent on 4 April 2003 as US tanks were advancing on Baghdad. It said that the world was getting the impression that Iraqi civilians were co-operating with American soldiers."
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong TDC. The discussion took place before the fall of Saddam (five days before). The letter suggests the weapons should be removed, which indicates a future course of action. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.--csloat 21:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
You are reading information into the source which is suspect to interpretation, the source makes very clear ” that senior officials in the Iraqi government were discussing the removal of the HMX before the fall of Saddam”, which would support the claim that the explosives were indeed removed from AlQaqaa before US forces arrived there. Also, Cockburn’s article has been used exclusively by individuals who believe that AlQaqaa was raided before US forces arrived. [11] Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The source makes it clear that they were discussing this five days before the fall of Saddam, well after the US forces were in Iraq. This is not about who used Cockburn's article; this is about what it clearly says, which is that a letter five days before the fall of Saddam suggests looting the site. We have eyewitnesses from both the Iraqi and American side who saw the looting take place after the fall of Saddam. Why are you resurrecting election propaganda that even the Bush Administration has abandoned?-csloat 20:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

4) The section beginning "*Pentagon official--" -- TDC changes it to wording that is simply poor. His wording suggests the official is always anonymous, which is ludicrous; mine quotes more of the AP report and shows that the official "spoke under the condition of anonymity" which is more accurate.(csloat)

The AP story clearly identifies the the source as being an anonymous Pentagon official, and Sloat is attempting to rephrase it so that it appears that this has come from the Pentagon directly. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. It says clearly the official "spoke under the condition of anonymity." TDC's rephrasing makes it sound as if the official is anonymous while he is working at the Pentagon, which is unlikely. This is not a POV issue; it is a syntax issue.--csloat 21:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
A source speaking under the condition of anonymity is the same thing as an anonymous source. No name of any person interviewed was given in the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not disputing the guy speaks anonymously; I am simply disputing your faulty syntax. Again, please re-read my point above. Thanks.-csloat 20:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

5) TDC insists on removing this sourced quotation: "The New York Times summarized in April 2005, "videos taken by television crews with American troops show the bunkers were still full of explosives well after the invasion."[12]" TDC claims his own watching of what he claims are the same videos do not show any explosives. I believe a published source is more reliable for wikipedia than the opinion of a wikipedia editor. (csloat)

The video shows no IAEA seals, please review the video and verify. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The NYT says clearly that "the bunkers were still full of explosives well after the invasion"; please review and verify. Your interpretation of a video is not encyclopedic.--csloat 21:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Once again, the NYT is not the fountain of truth on this, or any issue. Please review the video, if you do not believe me. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not about whether I believe you; it is about your original research interpretation of a video vs. the published account in the NYT. The published account belongs here.--csloat 20:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

6) TDC wants the sentence "Frank Rich recently criticized the blogosphere's as well as the administration’s attacks on proponents of the story" nonsensically stuck on the end of the article "where trash like his belongs" as he put it; the place he stuck it makes no sense at all. Those are my comments on the main issues on this page; I welcome feedback from other users.--csloat 00:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This was a compromise, although I feel the inclusion of Rich's editorial adds nothing to the article but naked POV, a home could be found for it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
As I said in the edit summary and above, the issue here is not Frank Rich but his summary of two notable articles on this issue.--csloat 21:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The two notable article had already been summarized in the article. Frank is, as I have established before, not notable on this subject or most others. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, the summary in the intro should stay, with or without your dear friend Mr. Rich.-csloat 20:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Overall, I think the main issue between TDC and myself is that I think this article should not be about the 2004 U.S. presidential election. TDC feels it necessary to try to use this article to prove that Bush's campaign managers were telling the truth here; notice that not a single piece of information in support of TDC's view comes from after November 2004. The Bush campaigners have dropped these claims; there is no reason to give them such prominence on Wikipedia when all evidence since Nov 2004 has suggested they were wrong, and the campaigners (except for TDC) have not bothered to refute the more recent evidence. As I said above, the whole "evidence for"/"evidence against" section is ludicrous as it falsely suggests this issue is still being debated by anyone notable. It is not.--csloat 21:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the mind reading, but perhaps I could summarize my position a bit better than you could. I am simply trying to stop Sloat from turning this article, as he has done with almost every article he involves himself in, into a mirror for his blog. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
This article has nothing to do with my blog. I think my summary is a little more careful and precise than yours. I do hope someone else will take a look at this discussion and add their thoughts.--csloat 20:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Review

This excerpt comes from the May-June 2005 issue of Military Review:

The insurgency's ability to construct IEDs depends on the availability of bombmaking materials, particularly explosives. The widespread availability of explosives in Iraq means the insurgency will have the material resources to build IEDs for many years to come. Currently, approximately 80 tons of powerful conventional explosives (mainly HMX and RDX) are missing from the former Iraqi military base at Al Qaqaa. These explosives could produce bombs strong enough to shatter airplanes or tear apart buildings and are probably already in the hands of the insurgency. The director of the Iraqi police unit that defuses and investigates IEDs notes: "One of the coalition's fatal mistakes was to allow the terrorists into army storerooms.... The terrorists took all the explosives they would ever need."
Montgomery McFate, J.D., Ph.D., "Iraq: The Social Context of IEDs", Military Review, May-June 2005 [13]

And this in December 2005 from the Strategic Studies Institute:

That additional U.S. forces would have been useful can scarcely be denied. Iraq’s borders were left unguarded for a year, according to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, and clearly more might have been done on that score. Also, a large number of ammunition dumps across the country were left unguarded for months, including critical facilities like the al-Qaqaa one south of Baghdad. U.S. forces were clearly shorthanded in dealing with the anarchical conditions in Iraq.
David C. Hendrickson and Robert W. Tucker, "Revisions In Need Of Revising: What Went Wrong In The Iraq War", December 2005) [14]

SMB 17:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I went ahead and added the top quote; the second one might be useful in the "evidence" section, but I also think that entire section can go now that the 2004 election is long over. I will likely be rewriting the article from that standpoint when I have time. csloat 20:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)