Couple this with the fact that the commander of the 101st at the time just went on record as saying he had no orders to guard the facility, and it's crystal clear: Any criticism of this sequence of events is a direct condemnation of the 101st.
I mean, this story suggests that the 101st arrived on site, took it upon themselves to partake in activities (unsealing bunkers) for which they were not trained nor under orders to perform, then simply up and left what they uncovered unguarded.
You can make the case that conventional arms and various other items were looted---hell, there are published stories from that time that clearly state that US troops almost seemed to encourage some low-level looting---but this story doesn't even come close to even thinking about explaining what happened to 377 tonnes of explosives.
If Kerry is saying Bush is directly responsible for any missing explosives (assuming that might be true which is a HUGE stretch) then Kerry is pretty much endorsing we fight in Iraq using a Vietnam--Lyndon Johnson approach of planning, strategy, direct control of what happens in the field from the White House. This is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS to do such a thing.
All military generals will tell you they do NOT want the White House calling the shots on a micro-level. Essentially John Kerry is endorsing a Lyndon Johnson tyyp approach from the Whitehouse...one that military personnel insist is why we lost in Vietnam.