I've been reading about the frightening insecurity (and the herculean security challenge they represent) of Saddam's conventional weapons stores since at least last summer. Millions of tons of munitions in thousands of sites, known and unknown. Leave it to the Times to ignore past reports and handle the issue in the exact least responsible manner possible: as a cudgel against the administration.

And we all know that Kerry's position boils down to, "If I had been president, those munitions would have been safe and sound in Saddam Hussein's hands, where they belong."

Check your calendar. US Troops secured those explosives on April 4.

According to this FoxNews report, troops were there a week before NBC:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83252,00.html

Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, said troops found thousands of 2-by-5-inch boxes, each containing three vials of white powder, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in chemical warfare.

Initial reports suggest the powder is an explosive, but tests are still being done, a senior U.S. official said. If confirmed, it would be consistent with what the Iraqis say is the plant's purpose, producing explosives and propellants.

= = = =

We knew they were there, we verified their contents, and for whatever reason, we walked away. Poor planning, not enough resources, pick your excuse. But we had a chance to secure these explosives, and didn't.

I don't know why the Right is so obsessed with a man who refuses to admit he screwed up. If Bush had just a bit of human nature and candor he might be able to squeak out this election, but I honestly don't see it happening. Now, I have been wrong before, I'm human!

Flash

???

They had a *whole week* to secure the hundreds of ammo dumps peppering the Iraqi desert? Lackwits! Fire the C in C!

(sarcasm off)

I think this is what I've heard some Democrats complaining about - that running a war is *difficult*. It's difficult if not impossible to secure the enemy's ordnance and keep it out of the hands of terrorist insurgents. Does that mean that the war should not be undertaken until such time as that kind of thing is guaranteed? No, but you wouldn't know that to hear some people talk.

Using the inevitable difficulties and setbacks of a war as a cudgel to hit the administration over the head with would be a lot less transparent if the cudgelers also showed any appreciation whatsoever for the positive aspects of the campaign.

First, Flash, the article you cite has nothign to do with the explosives supposedly stolen (or at the very least nothing to tie the two stories together, other than the location, Al Qaqaa. It refers to Tabun - a soviet nerve gas - and various undefined explosives.

It refers to them as part of a huge cache of explosives - most likely of thousands of tons of munitions. "Vials of white powder" does not equal "300 tons of RDX". Apples and oranges.

Hussein had, by some estimates, *two million tons* of explosives - which may be more than the *US* military has.

Apples and axles, more like.

Alas, Mitch, the Pentagon says that troops DID see the materials there at the site after the war started:

"At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said US-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity."

Bush is the Barney Fife of keeping us safe.
/jc

"Bush is the Barney Fife of keeping us safe."

And yet, oddly enough, here we are in America having not been hit by a serious terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11. Must be just dumb luck, right?

Jebus, Mitch, I didn't realize how fast and loose you were playing with the facts. You cite:

An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.

"One day after the liberation," you say. What day is that? The fall of Bagdad?

Here's what NBC, your own cited source says:

An NBC News crew that accompanied U.S. soldiers who seized the Al-Qaqaa base three weeks into the war in Iraq reported that troops discovered significant stockpiles of bombs, but no sign of the missing HMX and RDX explosives.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

*Three weeks into the war*!

Even if we accept the NBC crew's assessment that the material was gone when the troops they were embedded with got there, that's the whole bloody point!!! We knew that these highly dangerous explosives were sitting there, and we don't go looking for them for three weeks! The fact that no soldier visited the site for three weeks is the whole point of Bush's incompetence. Instead of making sure that we hurried over to the Oil Ministry, as Scott McClellan says was the priority, we should have sent troops immediately to secure the bloody weapons!!

In any event, even NBC is reporting that the Pentagon acknowledges U.S. forces visited the site and confirmed the materials were there at the start of the war:

At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

Our forces confirmed the explosives were there, and then walked away.

I feel safer already.
/jc

Flash/Slash,
First, the left's obsession with W. admitting mistakes is childish. Which scenario is more likely?
SCENARIO 1
Left: C'mon George, admit your mistakes.
W: OK I made a mistake.
Left: What a great guy! We admire your willingness to admit mistakes. You now have our full support!
SCENARIO 2
Left: C'mon George, admit your mistakes.
W: OK I made a mistake.
Left: Aha! I knew it! You are a moron and a chimp and and evil (well, not evil per se since evil and good are artifical constructs employed by simpletons who lack cultural sensitivity). He made mistakes! Let's fire him!

Second, please refer me to any of the many mistake-free military campaigns in history. I am anxious to study them in detail.

Third, the campaigns and rebuilding in Afghanistan and Iraq are going to go down in history as two of the most successful ever in terms of time, cost, casualties (both military and civilian) and achievement. You simply cannot compare them to some ideal of perfection that never has and never will exist. Intellectual honesty dictates comparison to previous military campaigns and pre-war predictions. As compared to both previous wars and pre-war predictions (millions of refugees, etc. etc.) the campaigns in both countries have been and will be incredibly successful. Messy, as are all wars, but highly successful.

Fourth, the left admires shows of weakness (U.S. weakness that is). Our enemies do not.

Fifth, did you read the Fox article you cited? It illustrates the clear recklessness and stupidity of trusting the UN weapons inspection program. Al Qa Qaa is a 1100 building complex. A vial of chemical or biological weapons could kill thousands. They had from November to March to re-install the video surveillance systems Saddam dismantled in 1998 and still hadn't done it. A fleet of Eurocrats is no match for an evil dictator with billions in illegal oil revenue and a country the size of California.

The dash to Baghdad was the fastest, most successful military campaign ever, exceeding even the most optimistic expectations (military experts, correctly, spend more time contemplating worst case scenarios than best case scenarios). Which is preferable to you:

1) Saddam is gone, but in the confusion of a faster-than-expected victory a small portion of millions of pounds of weapons are lost (a point I'm not conceding but haven't had time to research thoroughly)?

2) All of those weapons (and facilities for producing God knows what) are still in the hands of Saddam?

Time to re-cast:
Hans Blix and Kofi Annan as Barney Fife.
W. as Andy.
John Edwards as Opie.

And you, Slash, are still being...not fast and loose, so much as incredibly selective in the facts you present.

Did it take three weeks to get to this particular ammo dump? Yep - in a country with an estimated *two million tons* of ammunition (more than the US military keeps in stock), it took US troops a while to get there. I presume Kerry "has a plan" to allow US troops to travel at the speed of light?

300-odd tons "missing", out of millions of tons available. And, by the way, had we not conquered Iraq, *all* of those explosives would be on the world dictator/terrorist mayhem futures exchange right now. Libya, by the way, we equally over-equipped; they're off the market now, too. It was Libyan RDX that brought down Pan Am 103, if you remember back that far.

In John Kerry's world, RDX would be a seller's market.

Your problem, Slash, is that you act like war is a cross-examination where you think you can catch your opponent on some arcane point of procedure. It's not. Bad things happen. Cues get missed. Men die for no good reason. Is it worth it in the end? You be the judge, as the American people will be a week from today.

One thing on which all rational people can agree? John Kerry is worthless as a leader.

Right on Mitch. Here's my criteria for a leader, even as a presidential challenger in war time:
1) Demonstrate you understand the nature and motivations of the enemy (it's not just al Qaeda, it's state sponsored Islamo-terrism-fascism).
2) Demonstrate that you understand who are allies are (not countries that prefer the US in a vulnerable and weakened situation, not countries that profit from maintaining a murderous, anti-US regime, etc.)
3) Demonstrate that you understand that everything you say or do serves to advance or deter US interests, the safety of our troops, and the morale/strength of our enemies.
Within this framework there is room for rational and principled disagreement.
John Kerry is not within this framework.

OK - pay close attention now. Drudge and Larry DiRita have shot their wad. Let's see what closer examination of their "story" turns up.

If it turns out that the MSM was right, remember this incident. Right now you are utterly convinced that the MSM lied to you in order to hurt the President. If it turns out they are telling the truth, I expect that to register. You can't resist every bad fact by calling it a MSM lie.

Mumbles: I call strawman. Is the MSM lying? To hurt the president? I dunno. All I know is, there's information here showing the MSM might be wrong, whether through "fog of war" or acting on agenda. It's worth looking at.

Oh, yeah - now there's evidence that the UN/IAEA ginned up this "scandal" to try to influence the election:

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_10_24_corner-archive.asp#043548

So if it turns out that the UN/IAEA concocted this "scandal" to try to influence the election, should we "expect it to register" with the left?

(Sorry. I made myself laugh).

Kerry/Edwards are running an ad campaign on the missing weapons. Should be compelling: Instead of millions of tons of weapons safely in Saddam's hands and Saddam safely in power, a minute fraction might possibly be missing and the rest are under US protection.
Complete. Moral. Bankruptcy.

I find it interesting that the "quotation volley" aresenals seem to be stocked by media reports. All great if accurate--and we know the media is always accurate, how many detractions and corrections, afterall, do we see on page one.
If, however, one of the candidate for president's campaigns are using media reports, sans fact-checking, for political shock value...I hope it blows up in their face!

Josh "ua Micah" Marshall is trying his damnedest to flog this story back into life. I don't think he can do it.

Someone - one of you lefties out there - tell me how this passes the sniff test?

1. 380 tons - 19 full semi tractor-trailers - is not a low-profile operation. Question for you; which scenario is more likely:
a) Looters, operating under constant
intelligence overflights, with access
to 19 semis (or hundreds/thousands of
trips by smaller vehicles) or
b) A Hussein government operation long
before any invasion took place? (Remember -
carrying out the mission after the
invasion would be very difficult...)

2. Let's not forget the IAEA tie-in.

So which scenario requires less suspension of disbelief - that the HMX and RDX was gone and the IAEA is playing politics, or that looters carried out a near-superhuman feat of logistics?

I've been meaning to thump this in and post it....

We have a saying in fighter aviation: "Knowing that you have no SA (situational awareness) is great SA!"

I keep thinking this everytime I hear people bandy the word "incompetent" around.

Monday morning quarterbacks always have the big picture (even captured in slo-mo in most cases) while the players on the field must deal with the situation as it presents itself by absorbing data, processing, making a decision, formulating a plan and acting upon that plan while being prepared to react to, and counter setbacks or misperceived/false data.

Military action, like sports action is the same thing except there usually aren't as many rules (eg. set parameters that one can use to filter data) and people die if the wrong decisions are made, the plan is flawed, or if it is executed poorly.

I know, where are you going with this Fingers?

1. As much as we try to avoid it, stuff happens. Because some grunts in the field moved on from one piece of ground to another and operational neccessity didn't bring other grunts back for 3 minutes or days or weeks, it certainly isn't the CinC's fault. If we want to go that route...it is time to concede what Mitch has been saying all along: "The boss has put together one hell of an unbeatable team." In fact, if Vietnam teaches us nothing else, the only foe we have to fear is us!

2. GW is a pretty bright guy in my opinion. When it comes to military operations he has let the experts do their work while refusing to undermine their hardwork and sacrifice to appease the smarmy bastards who want an apology. Do we think that will happen from the self-proclaimed 'better choice to lead our military?'