If I understand your argument you are saying that a highly cynical Keryy campaign is prepositioning themselves so that IF a terrorist attack occurs as happened in Spain, they will be in a strong position to make it a NEGATIVE for Bush. The reasoning being that since all the published conventional wisdom is that an attack makes Homeland Defense a number one issue and that is Bush' strength. Therefore, if Kerry can say that the Terrorists MIGHT have acquired the explosives due to Bush' lack of planning, Kerry gets the benefit.

That's a pretty cynical analysis. Probably accurate, too!

Yep. It's cynical.

I don't think Kerry has a thing to lose by it...

Discredited, huh Mitch? Question for you.

Your argument that the explosives couldn’t possibly have been stolen after the site was left unguarded after the war began is that it’s impossible to remove 380 tons of material in three weeks, right? That’s your argument?

If that’s your argument, then must not the administration be lying when it suggests that the explosives could have been removed in the three weeks BEFORE the war started, between the IAEA’s inspection of the site in mid-March and U.S. military’s first presence in the area on April 3?

“The official suggested that the material could have vanished while Mr. Hussein was still in power, sometime between mid-March, when the international inspectors left, and April 3, when members of the Army's Third Infantry Division fought with Iraqis inside Al Qaqaa. At the time, it was reported that those soldiers found a white powder that was tentatively identified as explosives. The site was left unguarded, the official said.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/politics/27bomb.html

Of course, the entire premise of your 3-week deadline is based upon the now refuted claim that the troops the NBC reporter was embedded with searched the site on April 10:

“White House officials reasserted yesterday that 380 tons of powerful explosives may have disappeared from a vast Iraqi military complex while Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq, saying a brigade of American soldiers did not find the explosives when they visited the complex on April 10, 2003, the day after Baghdad fell.

But the unit's commander said in an interview yesterday that his troops had not searched the site and had merely stopped there overnight.

The commander, Col. Joseph Anderson, of the Second Brigade of the Army's 101st Airborne Division, said he did not learn until this week that the site, Al Qaqaa, was considered sensitive, or that international inspectors had visited it before the war began in 2003 to inspect explosives that they had tagged during a decade of monitoring.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/politics/27bomb.html

And worse, Pentagon officials themselves say that U.S. troops confirmed the presence of the explosives after the war began:

“At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed the explosives were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.”

10/26/04 Star-Ledger (Newark N.J.) 1

So I'm going to leave your conspiratorial rantings alone and concentrate on mentioning that your factual premise is entirely flawed.

Join the "reality-based community," Mitch, the water's fine!
/jc

(granted, oil prices are rather high)

I'm on my way to a meeting, so I only have time to ask: What about "it would have been very difficult to have looted 380 tons of explosives after the area was liberated" is discongruous with "the explosives were removed before the war"?

The only conspiracymongers are on your side, Slash.

The main points, Slash, are several:

1) Was the HMX/RDX there when the area was liberated? We don't know. Stu knows the NYTimes and the Democrats (pardon the redundancy) don't.

2) Was the President responsible for making sure guards were posted around the proper bunkers? I think there are other uses for that time, no?

Question for Democrats: Since as Silkypony says the HMX and RDX is exactly the type of weapons the terrorists like (if I recall correctly, a few ounces of RDX was what killed PanAm 1003 over Locherbie), aren't we better off being in control of the area where the stuff *is*, and knowing that there might be 400 tons unaccounted for, than we were with Hussein and his links to terror and hundreds of thousands of tons of Stu-only-knows what?

By the way, Slash - I love the way the Democrat bloggers are trying to coopt the term "Reality-based"; it'd be nice if they actually were. You in particular, Slash, are continuing your habit of trying to treat wars like they're legal proceedings. They're just not that way in...you guessed it (maybe), reality.

Mitch, you said:

"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?"

The blog you rely on states:

"Bottom line this operation would take the resources of AN ENTIRE COMPANY (approx. 100 men) OVER TWO WEEKS, good Intel to know exactly where the "right" explosives were hidden and a means of breaching huge steel doors and concrete of an ASP."

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002869.php

Your agument seems to be that removing 380 tons of material in so short of time would be a impossible logistically, especially without being seen.

And yet that's exactly what the Bush administration is suggesting happened, only they're suggesting that it was done in the three weeks before the war, not the three weeks after.

Nevertheless, you still haven't addressed the fact that Pentagon officlas themselves confirm that U.S. military personnel confirmed the presence of the explosives after the war started, but failed to secure the site and that the troops there on April 10 with the NBC reporter did NOT search the site for explosives, because nobody told them to. So the whole 3-week deadline never existed.

Your so-called refutation has been totally refuted. There was no search on April 10, so there was no 3-week deadline to remove the materials, and the explosives were there after the war and confirmed to be there by U.S. forces.

I know, I know, the Pentagon's in on the IAEA, NYT, Kerry conspiracy.
/jc

Everyone is missing the point over this issue.

First, Iraq was full of weapons and ammo dumps. In a country that was no threat to anyone (according to Liberals)had explosive dumps everywhere. I think to date we have detroyed over half a million tons of the stuff. It would be like trying to eliminate cars in the state of Michigan. And anything they don't have handy can be readily sent via donkey cart from Syria and Iran.

The important point to this issue is the intent of International Organizations (United Nations) attempting to influence the results of our national elections for their own interest.

Slash wrote:
And worse, Pentagon officials themselves say that U.S. troops confirmed the presence of the explosives after the war began:

“At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed the explosives were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.”

10/26/04 Star-Ledger (Newark N.J.) 1

First of all, it wasn't "officials" - it was one official (and that one official spoke on the condition of anonymity)

Secondly, there are MANY conflicting reports as to what was checked, by whom and when.

There are troops and reporters who are saying that the area was searched and nothing was found and reports that there wasn't enough time to do a search.

Ultimately - it looks like the evidence isn't clear. Yet, Sen. Kerry is willing toi use the limited and conflicting information to blast Pres. Bush and our troops.

Hmmmm.

Slash, as always, you present a limited and contextually-challenged slice of reality, declare victory, and skip away. Just like a Gore supporter.

"Your agument seems to be that removing 380 tons of material in so short of time would be a impossible logistically, especially without being seen."

No, Slash, I don't think it's excessively hard to tell the difference between removing it *before* the invasion and *after*.

Before the invasion, the Iraqis could have used any number of means to move the stuff; they (this is a key point, often lost on military-history-challenged liberals) *controlled* the area.

If you're saying that "looters" could have moved 380 tons of explosives in the time between the 3rd Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne division were on the site, I'd love to know how.

"Nevertheless, you still haven't addressed the fact that Pentagon officlas themselves confirm that U.S. military personnel confirmed the presence of the explosives after the war started,"

Yes, Slash. Again, not to put too fine a point on it, but *it was an ammo dump*. Explosives were present; that's what ammo dumps are for.

Were the exact 380 tons in question present when the 3rd ID was there, but not when the 101st was there? You certainly don't know, and I challenge you to show me that they weren't - or how they could have been moved under the circumstances.

""I know, I know, the Pentagon's in on the IAEA, NYT, Kerry conspiracy."

I've seen no response from you about the IAEA flap. Somehow I doubt I will - you're going to be throwing platoons of strawmen about alleged dates and unprovable quantities of explosives to try to make sure the real subject of the controversy, the IAEA's manipulation of our electoral process (and the NYTimes' willingness to go along).

But we're the conspiracy theorists. Right.

Mitch,

You spin a mean conspiracy theory…maybe you can get a gig on am1500 late night!

I buy that Mohammed El Baradei leaked the story to the NYT as a way to defeat Bush who he has reasons to hate. It might have worked if CBS had run it the Sunday night before the election and Kerry could have hyped it the day before the election. I don’t think he is evil enough to be in on a bombing plot, however.

If there are some terrorists out there who would love to derail Bush, this would be a fine opportunity for them. One suicide bomber using RMX that killed a hand full of children and Kerry would be all over it blaming the attack on Bush for not guarding the explosives. In the few days left before the election, Bush probably could not prove the RMX did not come from Iraq.

Assuming the terrorist organization was not in on the original story, I doubt if they could put together a bombing plot on such short notice.

See ktsp.com for validation of the story

In the words of the philosopher Nelson Muntz:

"Ha-ha! Your position has been usurped!"

Discredited, hmm?

I know...the Russians parachuted in and put fake explosives in Al Qa Qaa! It's the only explanation!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

“At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed the explosives were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.”Er, that may be the thousands of tons of conventional weapons. Oh, and ABC (US) did another weasel: an inspection inside the bunkers on April 18 2004 found what "look like" UN seals on cases of explosives. Note that the IAEA seals go outside the bunkers/buildings - UN seals inside are probably to show that conventional explosives were OK to ship to Iraq (for "mining", heh-heh).
Oh Yeah - those IAEA "seals" are apparently removable and re-installable with little more than a screwdriver.

The MSM has not reported very strenuously that pre-war the Pentagon noted a LOT of shipping activity there - just don't know what was being shipped, so won't say it was the HMX. See below about the RDX...

-----------

El Baradei, after 17 months, asked for an immediate report from the Iraqi government Oct 1. They responded based on the records of the old regime. It was "leaked" in about two days after receipt on Oct 10...

---------
And El Baradei also did not mention this -

?RDX never at alQQ? And never sealed?
IAEA spokeswoman Melissa interview on ABC (Australia) - "IAEA inspectors visited Al-Mahaweel on Jan. 15, 2003, and verified the RDX inventory by weighing sampling," Fleming said. She said the RDX at Al-Mahaweel was not under seal [emphasis added - JSA] but was subject to IAEA monitoring."

Al-Mahaweel?
"The bulk of the RDX was stored at another site that was under Al Qaqaa's jurisdiction," IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said.
She says that the report seen by ABC only covers the Al Qaqaa site itself.
The second site, Al Mahaweel, is roughly 45 kilometres from Al Qaqaa.
Ai>Well, so much for about 140 of the 372 tons? Or what?