Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

About Those Lost Weapons...
Tech Central Station ^ | 10/27/2004 | James K. Glassman

Posted on 10/27/2004 6:38:53 AM PDT by yoe

So the Democrats, with help from the New York Times, have produced their October Surprise. What a dud!

In fact, the story the Times reported Monday gives enormous support to President Bush's rationale for invading Iraq in the first place.

The Times breathlessly reported that nearly 400 tons of explosives, part of Saddam Hussein's old weapons program, had disappeared from an installation south of Baghdad. The implication was that the Bush Administration was at fault for not securing the cache. Because the president skimped on troops, goes this reasoning, there were not enough U.S. soldiers to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles. Those weapons could now be used against Americans here at home.

The Kerry campaign has been flogging the story like crazy, and an ad is being prepared, which has Kerry accusing Bush of failing "to secure 380 tons of deadly explosives, the kind used for…terrorist bombings. His Iraq misjudgments…make our country less secure."

John Edwards noted on the trail that one pound of the explosives is enough to bring down an airliner.

Apparently, the Times scooped CBS TV's "60 Minutes," which had planned to run the story on the Sunday before the election. The source had peddled the tale to both outlets, and the New York Times rushed it into print.

As it turns out, it's not much of a story. First of all, the administration didn't screw up. It seems the weapons may have been gone when we got to Baghdad.

Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News reported Monday night that his network was right there, on the spot, when the 101st Airborne got to the installation south of Iraq's capital on April 10, 2003. "But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives called HMX and RDX" said Miklaszewski.

Then on Tuesday Miklaszewski provided more details. He reported that the 101st airborne troops "were not actively involved in the search for any weapons" and that, given the size of the Al Qaqaa facility, it's unclear if the 101st was "near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX." But he went on to say that "in March, shortly before the war began, the [International Atomic Energy Agency] conducted another inspection and … inspectors were unable to inspect the RDX stockpile and could not verify that the RDX was still at the compound." It seems some of the missing materials were moved even before Americans set foot in Iraq - right under the UN's nose! Pentagon officials have speculated that Saddam could have ordered the materials moved before the invasion by coalition forces.

But far more important, Kerry's complaints about Bush only enforce Bush's reason for invading Iraq. Think about it.

Kerry and Edwards say that Bush didn't do enough to prevent the disappearance of the explosives, which could be used against Americans here at home. But the very existence of such explosives -- whether defined as weapons of mass destruction or not -- was the reason Bush led the nation into Iraq in the first place.

Why did we invade Iraq? Specifically, so dangerous weapons would not be used against us here at home -- either by Saddam Hussein's forces or by his terrorist friends. Did we miss some of these weapons? Of course. But we got a lot more than we would have gotten if we had not gone into Iraq in the first place.

If we had followed Kerry's strategy, Iraq today would have far more than 380 tons of explosives to use against us.

Last Sunday, the Washington Post buried a remarkable article by Bob Woodward that listed 22 questions that the nation's top investigative reporter wanted to ask Kerry. The questions, Woodward wrote, were "based entirely on Bush's actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations."

Woodward began seeking the interview in June. He had already spent three and a half hours with the president. At first, Kerry's aides said the interview would happen, but, after months of stringing Woodward along, Kerry changed his mind. "The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers," wrote Woodward.

We'll just have to take Kerry's word for it.

The truth, however, is that Kerry has never offered an alternative strategy for Iraq, except to say that he would work more closely with France and Germany, countries that were not going to hold Saddam to account under any circumstances.

Now, as a result of his exploitation of the questionable New York Times story, we know a bit more. The clear implication is that, in a Kerry administration, the 380 tons of weapons would not have been lost; they would have been secured -- even without an invasion. A miracle!


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last

1 posted on 10/27/2004 6:38:53 AM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: yoe

I was a bit angry that Bush hasn't responded. However, I am starting to think he's just letting it work itself out in his favor.

Rope-a-dope??


2 posted on 10/27/2004 6:40:40 AM PDT by RockinRight (Bush's rallies look like World Series games. Kerry's rallies look like Little League games.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Kerry mentioned it in the second debate....did anyone pick up on that? He knew then this was going to be used as a story and tipped us off. Interesting, huh?


3 posted on 10/27/2004 6:41:40 AM PDT by TexasTaysor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News reported Monday night that his network was right there, on the spot, when the 101st Airborne got to the installation south of Iraq's capital on April 10, 2003. "But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives called HMX and RDX" said Miklaszewski.

Why were the munitions still there in the first place?

Duelfer also said U.N. weapons inspectors recommended in 1995 that the high explosives be destroyed because of their potential use in a nuclear weapons program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency instead ordered the explosives stored in sealed bunkers 30 miles south of the Iraqi capital. The last time the IAEA verified that the bunkers were still sealed was in March of last year, about a month before the first U.S. troops moved into the complex as they pushed toward Baghdad.


4 posted on 10/27/2004 6:42:23 AM PDT by Fatalis (The Libertarian Party is to politics as Esperanto is to linguistics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
What a dud!

Like one of those things that doesn't go over well in church.

It shows many things..
the left's complete desperation
the direct ties between the DNC and the MSM
and the fact that RATs will tell any lie to manipulate the masses.

But, we already knew that...just another example!

5 posted on 10/27/2004 6:42:35 AM PDT by Tula Git
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
Rope-a-dope??

Uh huh.

The Internet and talk radio is leveling this fake story. Cheney chimed in last night. The President is staying with his message.

Contrast that to -- Kerry has no message.

6 posted on 10/27/2004 6:43:11 AM PDT by snooker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Check out this commercial for iraqi elections

http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=301


7 posted on 10/27/2004 6:43:41 AM PDT by Robert Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snooker

What did Cheney say about it?


8 posted on 10/27/2004 6:43:56 AM PDT by RockinRight (Bush's rallies look like World Series games. Kerry's rallies look like Little League games.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
Yep. George Bush has been on the edge again and again, but he keeps coming back. He's no amateur.
9 posted on 10/27/2004 6:45:57 AM PDT by cripplecreek (We've turned the corner and we're not smokin crack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: snooker

ABC Radio is reporting today that no one really knows when the munitions disappeared, laying out the possibility they disappeared prior to the invasion.


10 posted on 10/27/2004 6:46:06 AM PDT by gov_bean_ counter (If it talks like a liberal, votes like a liberal and spends like a liberal, it's a liberal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Rove may be making a commercial of Yaawns tirade and then make a complete fool out of him??? This was another Roadrunner moment, beep beep!

Pray for W and Our Troops

11 posted on 10/27/2004 6:46:33 AM PDT by bray (Nam Vets Rock!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
>>Rope-a-dope??<<

Rope-a-Dope 101..W is the master.

12 posted on 10/27/2004 6:47:02 AM PDT by Tula Git
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yoe

ping-a-roonski


13 posted on 10/27/2004 6:49:02 AM PDT by Fayre Verona (Car-carrying member of the VRWC and the Pajamahadine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

Basically -- the clip I saw had him talking about 'there were 400,000 tons of high explosives found so far in Iraq and there is some insignificant quantity that is missing'. Cheney went on to talk about how dangerous Iraq was to the US.

The dims are walking into a trap. Kerry is now saying Iraq had weapons that threaten the US where before he said that Iraq couldn't threaten US. flip-flop-flop-flip

The setup is in play -- The punch line is coming.


14 posted on 10/27/2004 6:49:15 AM PDT by snooker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

How generous. Maybe they can get recent history right after all.


15 posted on 10/27/2004 6:49:57 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Bush response...

"Well that RDX stuff may have slipped away somehow, that is a question we may never know the answer to, but one thing is for certain... Saddam will not be using it as part of the trigger mechanism for his first atomic bomb!
16 posted on 10/27/2004 6:50:07 AM PDT by RedEyeJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter
The definite time is May 27, 2003 when the US ISG visited and inventoried the whole QaQaa site. The explosives in question were not there.

The site was bombed expensively. Did anyone stop and think what happens to explosives when they get bombed?

17 posted on 10/27/2004 6:52:12 AM PDT by snooker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

ping


18 posted on 10/27/2004 6:58:06 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (Save a Democrat! Vote Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: yoe
Hey, you have missed the most important part. Kerry insulted the military. He accused the military of not securing the ammo. (Which wasn't there) Don't give me the passing the buck crap. He just got himself the loss of the military. This crap head is so stupid. Pass this info around.
20 posted on 10/27/2004 7:02:09 AM PDT by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson