CBS, the Kerry campaign, and dirty politics

(October 26, 2004 -- 03:03 PM EDT // link // print)
Okay, now can we say that the NBC Nightly News report that the explosives at al Qaqaa were already gone when the first US troops arrived -- the one Drudge goaded CNN into running with far harder than NBC ever did -- is now officially no longer operative?

Earlier we noted that MSNBC had interviewed a member of the NBC news crew that was embedded with the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade, which visited the al Qaqaa facility on the April 10th, 2003.

She said they didn't do any search. They were there on a "pit stop" on the way to Baghdad.

Now, NBC's Jim Miklaszewski just went on MSNBC with this follow-up (emphasis added) ...

Following up on that story from last night, military officials tell NBC News that on April 10, 2003, when the Second Brigade of the 101st Airborne entered the Al QaQaa weapons facility, south of Baghdad, that those troops were actually on their way to Baghdad, that they were not actively involved in the search for any weapons, including the high explosives, HMX and RDX. The troops did observe stock piles of conventional weapons but no HMX or RDX. And because the Al Qaqaa facility is so huge, it's not clear that those troops from the 101st were actually anywhere near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX. Three months earlier, during an inspection of the Al Qaqaa compound, the International Atomic Energy Agency secured and sealed 350 metric tons of HMX and RDX. Then in March, shortly before the war began, the I.A.E.A. conducted another inspection and found that the HMX stockpile was still intact and still under seal. But inspectors were unable to inspect the RDX stockpile and could not verify that the RDX was still at the compound.
Pentagon officials say elements of the 101st airborne did conduct a thorough search of several facilities around the Al QaQaa compound for several weeks during the month of April in search of WMD. They found no WMD. And Pentagon officials say it's not clear at that time whether those other elements of the 101st actually searched the Al QaQaa compound. [/size]

Now, Pentagon officials say U.S. troops and members of the Iraq Survey Group did arrive at the Al QaQaa compound on May 27. And when they did, they found no HMX or RDX or any other weapons under seal at the time. Now, the Iraqi government is officially said that the high explosives were stolen by looters. Pentagon officials claim it's possible -- they're not sure, they say, but it's possible that Saddam Hussein himself ordered that these high explosives be removed and hidden before the war. What is clear is that the 350 metric tons of high explosives are still missing, and that the U.S. or Iraqi governments or international inspectors, for that matter, cannot say with any certainty where they are today.



Poor CNN.

October 26, 2004, 9:51 a.m.
The Vanishing Story
Kerry's Monday talking points were weak.

Explosives are missing in Iraq. This news ordinarily would not be the stuff of breathless political attacks, but in the final days of a presidential election anything will do - especially if you are John Kerry, waging your campaign on whatever fodder the New York Times happens to provide you on any given day. The latest is Monday's Times story detailing how powerful conventional explosives, HMX and RDX, were removed from a huge weapons site in Iraq called Al Qaqaa.

In the larger context of Iraq, this is hardly surprising. The country is bristling with weapons and explosives. According to the Duelfer report, 10,000 weapons sites have been reviewed and cleared since the war; 240,000 tons of explosives have been destroyed; and another 160,000 tons have been consolidated for destruction. Given the massive amount of material in play, it's not shocking that some of it would go missing or fall into the wrong hands. But the conception of immaculate warfare held by Bush's critics does not allow for such unfortunate incidents or operational mistakes - the realities of war.

The story of Al Qaqaa is more complicated than anti-Bush partisans are portraying it. According to the Times, U.N. weapons inspectors discovered Al Qaqaa after the first Gulf War. The powerful explosives, which can be used as the trigger in a nuclear device, weren't destroyed then because Saddam pleaded to keep them for use in mining and construction (uh-huh). After the inspectors were booted in 1998 and returned in late 2002, they realized that 35 tons of HMX had been taken in the meantime. So it is clear that the inspections process Kerry and others wanted to rely on to deal with Saddam was inadequate.

Now, it seems another 377 tons of high-power explosives are gone. The thrust of the Times story is that they are missing because of the Bush administration's carelessness right after the liberation. But even International Atomic Energy Agency experts cited in the Times report say Iraqi officials probably removed the explosives prior to the war. These experts, it is true, contend that the officials didn't take them far from Al Qadaa. But how do they know? According to administration sources, Coalition forces were at the site during and after hostilities and searched roughly 30 bunkers and 90 other buildings. They found nothing under IAEA "seal." This raises the possibility that the bunkers the agency had sealed prior to the war were broken into, and the explosives taken, before or during the war, making it nearly impossible to stop. Indeed, NBC Nightly News reported Monday that NBC was embedded with the Army's 101st Airborne when they searched the site three weeks into the war and confirmed that none of the powerful explosives were found.

Then again, it is not inconceivable that the explosives were taken in postwar looting, as Iraqi officials have said. In which case, the administration should have paid more attention to securing the facility amid the postwar chaos. But such mistakes are endemic to warfare. John Kerry's position is that he won't tell us whether or not he would have removed the dictator who was stockpiling HMX, but in the event that he had, he would have waged the war with fewer flaws than any other major military operation in history has been waged. This posture neatly combines cowardice with opportunism and over-promising: a trifecta of contemptibility.

Remember, Saddam had an interest in explosives like HMX for one reason: They could have played a role in the revival of his WMD program. President Bush has removed that possibility once and for all - and for that, the region and the world are in his debt.

You have provided absolutely no proof that the explosives were removed prior to UN Military arriving at the base. If you feel you have, please point it out.

Indeed, NBC Nightly News reported Monday that NBC was embedded with the Army's 101st Airborne when they searched the site three weeks into the war and confirmed that none of the powerful explosives were found.

Or asking Kerry to stick to a single side of an issue...

This doesn't even make any sense. What UN military?

"NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they [took] over the weapons installation south of Baghdad. But they never found the 380 tons" of missing explosives, the network reported.

Guess what, it doesn't matter wether the explosives were removed prior to the invasion or afterwards. If the explosives weren't there, Bush should still have allocated troops to guard the site since he didn't know they weren't there.

Bush failed to guard a site where tons of high explosives were likely being stored, which is sufficient reason not to vote for him regardless of wether the blooper had any consequences.

Guess what, it doesn't matter wether the explosives were removed prior to the invasion or afterwards. If the explosives weren't there, Bush should still have allocated troops to guard the site since he didn't know they weren't there.

Bush failed to guard a site where tons of high explosives were likely being stored, which is sufficient reason not to vote for him regardless of wether the blooper had any consequences.

If the explosives weren't there, Bush should still have allocated troops to guard the site since he didn't know they weren't there.

Einherjar wrote:

If the explosives weren't there, Bush should still have allocated troops to guard the site since he didn't know they weren't there.

And exactly how is this a sensible statement?