Posted on 10/25/2004 7:14:46 AM PDT by crushelits
Adam Yoshida nails it, regarding this much-hyped
New York Times story about missing explosives in Iraq.
Now, the story fails to answer one core question: when did these explosives go missing? It is simply never mentioned anywhere in the body of the story. American forces, one official is quoted as saying, went through the facility sometime towards the beginning of the war, saw no materials carrying the IAEA seal, and moved on. Buried deep within the story is the most likely explanation for what happened to the stockpile: it was standard Iraqi practice to, prior to bombing, move explosives out into the open and camouflage it. In all probability, it was long gone before any American soldiers ever got near the place.
Presumably, this story is designed to feed on the liberal argument that too few troops were sent to Iraq and that, as a result, US casualties have been higher than they otherwise needed to be. John Kerry tried to push this line during the debates.This ignores two critical points:
First: in all probability most of what was at Al Qaqaa and these other places was looted before the arrival of US troops. Post-war intelligence confirms what many of us have long believed: that Saddam had, by March of 2003, abandoned all hope of defeating the United States in a conventional war and, therefore, had staked his hopes on the victory of a guerrilla force which, in collaboration with seditionists in America, would undermine the morale of the American people and force a US withdrawal.
Second: more US troops, unless the numbers were truly substantial, would probably have not made a difference, except for resulting in more US dead. In the sort of operation such as the one ongoing in Iraq, a point is reached where more troops simply mean more targets. Iraq was (and is) a nation literally floating on a sea of explosives. To secure all of those sites (and to do so without sustaining heavy losses) would have required, literally, more than a million men. This, of course, is the point of these attacks. Liberals are now for defending America, so long as we’re able to do it with more troops than are physically available. Anyone even a vague knowledge of history fully knows that these things happen: munitions linger long after wars end. To this very day, people still occasionally find bombs from the Second World War lying about.
You can see this being cited in antiwar arguments, can't you? "If it weren't for the invasion by the Coalition, these 350 tons of explosives would be safely in the hands of Saddam Hussein, where they posed no threat to anyone!"
UPDATE: Kerry is in New Hampshire, and is talking about this story.
"Bush talks tough and brags about making America safer... has once again failed to deliver."
Wow. Why was this president wasting his time in the Oval Office when he himself was supposed to be on the ground, guarding the Al Qaqaa facility?
"This president failed to guard those stockpiles. Today we learn these explosives are missing, unaccounted for, and possibly in the hands of terrorists."
As Kerry rips into Bush's "unbelievable blindness, stubbornness, and arrogance," I'm struck by how much disdain Kerry can pack into his usually-droning voice. He really thinks the president is dumber than dirt and malicious as well.
Then he turns around and says the troops are doing a magnificent job.
This man is a FRAUD.
Kerry would make ZERO mistakes. He has a plan. </smartarse>
Kerry is preaching to the choir at this point. No worries. Bush has it locked. It's just a matter of beating voter fraud.
Anything do diminish Operation Iraqi Freedom and elevate himself.
bumb
This type of "story" and Kerry's assinine assertions are what make me feel good about a very strong electoral victory.
People don't like Kerry. They don't like that he says obviously wrong and injurious things about our President and our country.
The myopia of the left is unbounded.
It is such an eyeopener to me to see just how truly bias the MSM is and what a part it plays in propaganda!!!! Kerry will not win....Bush will and win big! Americans have opened their eyes to what is going on...ever since Memogate...thanks to Dan Rather! By the way...what happened to that story?????????
But Kerry says Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror.
bump for later
I didn't see 350 tons of munitions. Did you see them? Did they exist? I don't think so. I think they were destroyed by Saddam with his WMD's back before the war even started.
Did Blixy see them? I don't think so. And why is the IAEA concerned? The weapons aren't nuclear.
I am confused. Did the times mean that this stockpile existed before it didn't exist?
Brilliant analysis....Post this everywhere you can. The NY Times has once again given Kerry his talking points. Remember, if we beat Kerry we beat the MSM too!!!!!!!
Right before he said Bush has made Itaq a breeding ground for terrorists.
"If it weren't for the invasion by the Coalition, these 350 tons of explosives would be safely in the hands of Saddam Hussein, where they posed no threat to anyone!"
LOL !
Given that the explosives were gone before the Americans got there that proves that Saddam was violating the UN sanctions. Nothing happened his fiefdom without his approval. And if Kerry is right and the explosives are in the hands of terrorists, it was Saddam himself who put it in their hands...thus supporting the link between SH and terrorists. And by the way, Kerry claims there were no terrorists in Iraq to give the explosives to until we got there.
If I remember correctly the first priority was a Dam, that could have killed thousands. Next, chemical weapons storage and some locations which were suspect. The third priority was the oil fields, to prevent against sabotage. Last year, the MSM complained about the Iraq Museum and looting. Now one week before the election, this news comes out...hmmmmm
IOW, Saddam followed the Vietnam model.
Kerry is all over the map - "I would have caught Osama, I would have built a coalition, I wouldn't have 'outsourced' the operation, I would have sent more troops, I would not have 'rushed to war", etc." There's no coherent policy coming from him because, among other things, HIS STATEMENTS CONTRADICT EACH OTHER!!! He doesn't know what the &#%! he's talking about and will say ANYTHING to get elected! Throw enough claptrap against the wall and hope some of it will stick. I pray the country is not stupid enough to swallow his nonsense.
And yes, I am disappointed that Bush did not just put him away rhetorically in the debates. No good to dwell on that now. We need Bush to be re-elected, no doubt! We have a lot of work to do! And don't expect the "electioneering" to be over on Nov. 2. Remember 2000. Be ready for overtime!
Although I hope and believe that Bush will win decisively. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.