If you are interested in the NY Times story on the missing cache of explosives, see Powerline.
They have all the links, including the NBC report that questions the NYT report. Also this from Cliff May at NRO. I quote in full: "Sent to me by a source in the government: ’The Iraqi explosives story is a fraud. These weapons were not there when US troops went to this site in 2003. The IAEA and its head, the anti-American Mohammed El Baradei, leaked a false letter on this issue to the media to embarrass the Bush administration. The US is trying to deny El Baradei a second term and we have been on his case for missing the Libyan nuclear weapons program and for weakness on the Iranian nuclear weapons program.’
(For the record, I don’t reveal my sources so if that means I end up sharing a cell at Sing-sing with Judy Miller, so be it.)"
Additional note: Drudge
has an interesting big footnote to the story. It turns out that CBS’s 60 Minutes was going to run with the story on the evening of the election. The NY Times ran with it, and has now been proven to be highly questionable by NBC. So CBS either got lucky or some producer made the right decision. Yet, one I can’t help wonder who fed the (bogus) information to CBS in the first place.
This is Federal, Peter, so you’d be sharing a cell with Martha in WV (if lucky), Guido at Leavenworth (if not lucky) or Hassan at Marion (if REALLY unlucky).
At the heart of the CBS story with the fraud documents, the bumbling reporting was actually pretty funny. And watching Dan Rather with his childish response was priceless. Even though it had the potential to sway voters, in the end, it was funny becuase it was so badly done.
In this story, it’s not funny. A foreign national is trying to sway our election for his political purposes. The story essentially seems acurate (at this point), just the time line is wrong. And it’s wrong intentionally to hurt the President.
This is bad.
Ah, yes, El Baradei. Yet another esteemed foreign leader in support of Kerry.
Georgie, Porgie, puddin’ and pie,
Went to a war based on a lie.
Got his troops killed with roadside terror,
With tons of bombs lost by error.
But reward him with honors for acts neglectable,
And continue to pretend that he was electable.
Tons of unguarded stuff in I-raq; stuff you can make bombs out of. Saddam, that nasty guy, was in a box. Couldn’t go anywhere. Getting weaker. Didn’t have WMDs. So how was Georgie gonna get even for dissin’ his dad? Why get the CIA and DOD to phony up some reports and git ol’ Colin Powell to put on his long face and scare the UN with fake photos and forged docs and intel from rogues and scoundrels. And all those nuclear sites with seals and cameras under world inspection by IAEA? Why they were abandoned when the war started. The inspectors HAD to leave. Remember? So for several months the munitions and machinery to build bombs were unguarded.
Now they disappeared. Who’s fault is that? NOOO! Couldn’t be Georgie boy. He planned the war so well. Now he can be president again, he did such a good job.
Admit it, Georgie would have been a Walmart greeter if not for family connections.
In case you have forgotten: How the G.W. Bush family fortune was made.
https://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm
I’ve seen that troll post that poem twice today...Also, at pollipundit.
I don’t see any evidence yet that this is bogus. NBC has pulled its reports that troops did not find anything there at the outset. In most ways this does not reflect well on the planning and execution of this administration.
Christopher,
Refer to post re: FDR.
Interestingly, the NYTimes (and CBS, which had intended to do the story Oct 31! October surprise!) knew very well there was a good chance they were wrong. In the article itself, a bit more than half-way in -
’A senior Bush administration official said that during the initial race to Baghdad, American forces "went through the bunkers, but saw no materials bearing the I.A.E.A. seal."’ [Not that they were looking for them, but contrary to some later posts they must have at least checked anything that was open for combatants.]
NZBear also noted this.
It may have been a very cursory inspection (April 10? One day after Saddam’s statue was taken
down on TV?), but to know troops (and an NBC reporter) went through at least some of it and
not try to find out is more than irresponsible, it is tantamount to a direct lie. Three
sentences of a four-online-page article is not sufficient for a copout.
Note - Josh Marshall says the Pentagon says nothing like a search (except a quick look for
enemy personnel) was done until May 27. No IAEA-sealed explosives were found then. Again, though,
neither the Times or, apparently, CBS actually asked anyone. Notice the IAEA seems to
have sat on this for 17 months, until just before the election, out of consideration for us. Just
coincidence that the US has been making noises for longer than that about removing the head of
the agency.
Belmont Club is all over this:
https://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/10/rdx-problem-resolves-itself-little.html
Bottom line: the place was searched by units of the 3rd Infantry Division before the 101st Airborne arrived and there are contemporaneous press reports to document this.
Oh, come on; you all fall for an anonymous letter from an "administration official" provided by Cliff May, of all people? That guy is a partisan hack who can’t be trusted to give a straight up weather report, for crying out loud. Oh well.
Am understanding this right? Bush critics are now saying these weapons WERE there because there is no evidence that they weren’t? Why doesn’t this point apply to WMDs? This story proves the point many have been making that the real bad stuff, the WMDs, were there but most likely hidden or transported out of country before they could be secured or before the troops arrived. Seems like Bush’s critics are selectively applying logic to these events. It only reinforces just how week Kerry is.