Although neither the 3rd ID nor the 101st Airborne found evidence that the 308 tons of explosives were intact when they conducted their searches of al Qaqaa, it is also a fact that they weren't looking for it. It's not entirely clear, either, that all of the material was there when the IAEA made its final inspection before the war, because they didn't actually check the containers, and just assumed that the seals they had placed earlier were sufficient evidence that the material had not been tampered with. I don't know how "safe" this assumption was, but for the purpose of analyzing the credibility of the Kerry attack, that doesn't matter.
What we know is that since the items were found to be missing in May, by the Iraq Survey Group, the material must have been taken out prior to that date. And according to the defense department it would have been nearly impossible to remove the material once US forces arrived on the scene, because within a short span of time all of the available roads were choked with US transport traffic, and heavily monitored.
So it really doesn't matter whether the 3rd ID or the 101st can specifically verify that the explosives were no longer at the site, because they could not have been moved during the period between their inspections (however brief) and the Survey Group's findings in May. The volume is just too large not to have been noticed.
So, how to explain the Kerry campaign's continued harping on the issue, as well as Josh Marshall and others? (Kos' intransigence doesn't really require an explanation.) It has to be the case that they see defeat looming, and they have no alternative. It has come down to this.
The bottom line: This is the opportunity granted George Bush on a silver platter not to merely win, but to obtain a mandate. He can win BIG by riding this counter-attack all the way to Nov. 2. Basically, he can close Kerry down.
Update: Well, I don't know. I just listened to a Bush campaign advisor who was on Hardball (Richard Falkenrath, I think) specifically to respond to charges about al Qaqaa, and he nearly put me to sleep. In a monotone delivery he simply refused to respond to Reuben's outrageous charges that the looting after the fact had virtually been proved. (It now appears that the Russians, along with Iraqi Intelligence, may have moved the stuff. (hat tip: Ramblings Journal))
Instead of getting with it he simply kept saying, with nauseating repetitiveness, "we don't know what happened and it's irresponsible to say we do." Yeah Dick, it's real irresponsible... but you're not a moralist, your a political operative. So tell us why Rueben is full of crap. We all know, so why don't you?
So these geniuses have settled on a line, and they're not only not going to counter-attack effectively, but are apparently going to lay back and rest on their laurels.
Hell, they're so politically incompetent it almost convinces me to vote for Kerry... except that he's the one who opened himself in the first place. So we have two fighters, one who habitually drops his guard as he lashes out blindly and recklessly, while spending most of his time hiding in the corner, and the other who also likes the opposite corner, and who refuses to take the opening to counter-punch when he has the golden opportunity. How the hell did we end up with these sorry losers? I really don't know what's going to happen... and I'm close to not caring. I'm really not sure Bush has what it takes to be President. He talks tough, but he plays like Fauntleroy.
Man, I'm gonna need medication by Tuesday.
1
You are at least more sane on this one than Professor Chaos.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at October 27, 2004 06:00 PM (62QDG)
2
Al Ca Ca...now THAT'S funny!
Posted by: Laura at October 27, 2004 07:36 PM (ptOpl)
3
Herr Professor, I read your blog.
So your story is that Kerry's hammering this unsubstantiated and unproven claim, during the last week of a nearly tied Presidential election... and it's
not politically motivated? You're stickin' with that, are you? All I can say is... thanks... alot.
I sure hope you're right that Kerry keeps this front and center, because if not for him the media would drop it like poison. First of all, even though the soldiers in those units weren't tasked with searching that facility according to their testimony they did so. About the only argument you have is that, for some reason, they weren't sufficiently thorough. Nonetheless some of the people in the unit said that they made a fairly thorough search and saw no items tagged by the UN. 380 tons of cannisters with UN seals aren't something you can hide under the stairwell. These soldiers seem pretty darn convinced the items weren't there, and they're also more convincing witnesses than the NYT to most Americans... but that's almost beside the point.
The clincher is that the material was definitely no longer there by the time the Iraq Survey Group got around to checking it out a month later, and all roads in the area were, at the time, literally choked with US military traffic, checkpoints, etc. It simply isn't credible that 380 tons of material could have been loaded onto the 40 semis that would have been required to move it (according to Josh Marshall's calculations, not mine), by the hundreds of people required for the loding task over several days time, 24-7, and not have been noticed by anyone.
Moreover, for Kerry to raise this issue, even if the fate of the material in question were far more doubtful than appears to be the case, is the height of irresponsibility for a Commander in Chief. What's OK for Josh Marshall or you, or even for a Senate candidate, is definitely not OK for someone running for President of the US. He's back to his old dissident patterns of casting aspersion on the military on the flimsiest of evidence as he did with Winter Soldier, and it's an ideal issue for the President to "ride" from here 'til Tuesday, if you know what I mean.
Not only has the Kerry team miscalculated about the validity of the story itself... which most of the press is now soft-pedaling, but he has managed to remind people of the War on Terror (Bush's strongest issue) when the country had recently been focussing on Kerry's strongest issue: the economy. In addition Kerry has provided an opening to explain what could have easily happened to the missing WMD. The same thing that probably happened to the material intended as triggers for nuclear devices at al Qaqaa.
And not only
that but the only reason that material hadn't been destroyed back in 1995 was that the UN refused to do so, even though the only credible use for such material was to construct a triggering implosion for a nuclear weapon. So it's also a segway for the President to talk about the UN, Oil-for-Food, etc..
Kerry has just opened the door for the President to widen a smallish gap into a broad mandate, and you're helping to keep it open.
All I can say is: Thanks! Hope there are more like you around. You've earned a warm place in my heart.
Posted by: Demosophist at October 27, 2004 08:58 PM (OtR16)
4
Has anyone done the math on this 300+ tons of explosives? It's 0.019% of the total munitions that were in Iraq before we started destroying them. Two one-hundreds of a percent. Two ten-thousanths of the total.
Good God Almighty!!! When is someone going to start laughing at this instead of fighting over it? Here we have a serious candidate for president who has spent today, one sixth of the time remaining until his election, spewing outrage over 2/10,000ths of the munitions in Iraq, and accusing Bush of almost causing the end of the world because he didn't give a direct order to stop the war and go look for this stuff? He's outraged about there being serious weapons and implying they might have fallen into the hands of terrorists -- anybody remember why we went there in the first place???.
Can anyone name a single campaign in the past that has run more on empty than this clown? What about HIS plan for Iraq? (silence)
What about HIS plan for Social Security? (silence) What about HIS plan for health care? (silence)
He's gotten the most excited all fall about "proof" that Bush screwed up his National Guard service (thanks, Dan Rather), and now this? (thanks, NYT).
The only plan I've heard is his economic plan, where he is certain he has found a really, really, really rich country he's sure will marry the US. Whoopee. Now, THAT's a plan I think he can help us with. (Ok, so that's a joke. Just trying to lighten the moment...)
Posted by: deona at October 27, 2004 09:13 PM (gCLmD)
5
.019%, indeed - this is just 2/10000ths of the administrations incompetence when it came to preventing weapons and dangerous materials from getting in the wrong hands!
This was just part of a huge screw-up in plannign that did exactly what the administration said it was trying to avoid in the first place - distributing Iraq's weapons into terrorists hands!
Posted by: kiljoy at October 27, 2004 11:37 PM (QRhbq)
6
Um... who says that Saddam wasn't planning on distributing his explosives to terrorists? And who said he wasn't going to use them in further attacks on his neighbors? Have you no sense of history whatever???
The problem with you liberals is you will slash and burn this country to the ground, if that is what it takes for your candidate to win. So you naturally just push facts out of your head... like the fact that Saddam was a very dangerous despot with a history of mass murder and justplain villainy. Your wonderful United Nations and France, savior of the world, had been bought and paid for by Saddam, and you are so blind that you can't see that terrible things would have come out of letting him continue in power.
Posted by: clt510 at October 28, 2004 01:01 AM (0ncpD)
7
I like doing the math the other way: 380 tonnes (metric tonnes, mind you) comes out to 836,000 pounds of explosives. How many "looters" using how many trucks (on roads which were reportedly clogged with U.S. Army-type vehicles) would it take to move that much stuff out?
I think Kerry drank the Kool-Aid with this one.
Posted by: Stone Mirror (the Great and Terrible) at October 28, 2004 02:15 AM (8Zino)
8
actually, we do not know what the ISG found when it went to al Qaqaa in May 2003, other than the fact that the site had already been looted. The ISG made no public statement at that time (or in its final report) regarding the fact that HMX (an explosive used to detonate nuclear weapons) was missing from al Qaqaa.
Which brings up a question that the Bush administration is deathly afraid will be asked...
If the ISG KNEW that the stuff was missing in May 2003, why are we only finding out about it now? Why did the ISG COVER UP the fact that 380 tons of high explosives, including over 100 tons of explosives with specific application to the production of nuclear weapons, had gone missing?
There are publicly available, high resolution photographs of the facility---it was under constant sattelite surveillance because of its proximity to missile development sites. IF this stuff was moved before the US invaded, those sattelites would show that movement---they do not.
Posted by: paul lukasiak at October 28, 2004 07:12 AM (4Cuso)
9
Good point Paul...so what the hell DID happen to the stuff????
Posted by: Laura at October 28, 2004 09:23 AM (ptOpl)
10
If the ISG KNEW that the stuff was missing in May 2003, why are we only finding out about it now? Why did the ISG COVER UP the fact that 380 tons of high explosives, including over 100 tons of explosives with specific application to the production of nuclear weapons, had gone missing?
I'm just guessing here, but it's just possible they didn't want to alert the terrorists that the stuff was missing before they knew what happened to it. There was at least some possibility that Saddam hid it, after all... and about the last thing we need is an Al Qaeda easter egg hunt. One thing we're pretty sure about though: the stuff was moved before the US got there. Oh, and we're now pretty sure
who moved it too. [Note: I can't get the link above to open, but others seem to, so maybe it's just me. There are excerpts all over the net.]
There are publicly available, high resolution photographs of the facility---it was under constant sattelite surveillance because of its proximity to missile development sites. IF this stuff was moved before the US invaded, those sattelites would show that movement---they do not.
Well first of all, according to ABC News it was more like 3 tons than 380. Maybe a NYT typist was having a bad day. To tell the truth I don't know that much about Satellite surveillance to say for sure, but I suspect it's something less than an all-seeing eye in the sky,
especially since it probably didn't suddenly go blind after the US arrived on the scene. And if you recall, the Iraqis had this agreement with the UN inspectors before the invasion that required 48 hours notice of spy plane flights, or they'd shoot the plane down. It's now clear what they were up to, isn't it?
But keep retreating to the diminishing spot of uncertaintly, because it keeps the story on the front page.
Again
there's now no reason this election needs to even be close!
Posted by: Demosophist at October 28, 2004 09:50 AM (OtR16)
11
By the way, the IAEA document says "350 tonnes" so the "380 tons" is probably someone's quick conversion. It's not clear, however, whether it was actually only "3 tonnes." The point is that there were so many uncertainties that the
NYT should not have even considered going with this story, and especially not in time to give the bloggers and the Sunday Morning Talks plenty of ammo to shoot it down in flames.
Kerry has lost the election, and it was the
NYT that led him to the slaughter.
Posted by: Demosophist at October 28, 2004 10:16 AM (OtR16)
Posted by: Laura at October 28, 2004 12:21 PM (ptOpl)
13
KSTP-TV in Minneapolis had an embedded reporter & video guy with the 101st and they have actual video footage of the explosives that were at Al-Qaqaa when the 101st moved through:
http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1
(with video)
Posted by: News Watcher at October 28, 2004 12:23 PM (eKbzl)
14
are you people on crack?
bush blew it. go to ktsp's website and watch the video their embedded reporters shot. http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1
pull your partisan heads out of your partisan asses and consider rejoining the reality-based community.
Posted by: skyguy at October 29, 2004 12:19 PM (Ta6al)
15
Yea sure skyguy. Bush was the one counting the explosives. And Army major who was assigned to the explosives and was there. Claims the US Army used much of the ordinance to destroy other explosives. Same as we did in Nam. And who the hell says the records are correct anyway? Of course you may be like the genius liberal LMAO. Check his posts. He believed a case of mortar shells weights 3 oz and is 40 ft. long. Noticed Kerry seems to have suddenly dropped this agenda. Hmmmmmm. Wonder why?
Posted by: greyrooster at October 30, 2004 11:24 AM (CBNGy)
16
DEMOSOPHIST: With respect for you I am posting this to counter any future attacks on your (or whose ever) figures on truck loading.
I am experienced in this matter having invested in a small trucking business a few years ago.
1. Warehouses always, always have forklifts to load freight.
2. Semi-trucks in the United States are only allowed approximately 45,000 lbs loads due to an 80,000 lb load maximun that the DOT allows.
3. Many times trucks are only half full due to this weigh restriction.
4. Munitions are heavy. Very heavy. A 55 gallons drum of liquid explosive weight approx. 450 lbs. These drums are 23 " by 35". They can be placed 4 across and 3 high in the standard trailer. This would be only 2' of space in trailer taken up by 12 barrels of explosive weighing 5400lbs. That leaves 50 more feet or 25 rows in a standard 52' trailer. That would be 135,000 lb but you couldn't pull it. 70,000lbs is a more realistic number. I have pulled 80,000 with a special permit.
5. Ammunition is heavy in terms of volumn. Bullets and artillary shells are made of steel, lead and brass. Hand grenades are heavy. RPGS are heavy. Boxed plastic explosive is heavy. 14 trucks good have easily moved 836,000 lbs.
6. NOW THE ISSUE OF TIME TO LOAD: Warehouses, meat packing plants, banana haulers, Walmart etc. etc. etc. Can and do load a truck in 20 minutes all day long. Freight is on pallets and all a fork lift has to do is pick it up drive into the trailer and set it down.
7. Based on this one forklift could have loaded 14 trucks in 4hrs and 40 minutes. BUT WAIT A MINUTE: What if they had more than one loading bay and several fork lifts? Did you see picture of warehouse? Looked like many loading bays to me. 4 loading bays would me 14 trucks loaded in 1hr and 15 minutes.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 31, 2004 10:29 AM (CBNGy)
17
Personally, I don't believe any explosives are missing. Not the first paper work glitch in history. Where would someone hide them and the related trucks? Notice Kerry and crew hasn't been talking much about them lately.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 31, 2004 10:32 AM (CBNGy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
