John Kerry, Candidate Of The IAEA

The NY Times story about missing high explosives was set off by an Oct. 1 letter from the IAEA. Yesterday, I wondered about the timing - why was the IAEA so excited just now? Today, I speculated that the IAEA prefers John Kerry's approach to Iran over George Bush's.

Let's add this story from the Sun:

UNITED NATIONS - Bush administration officials suspect political motivation behind a letter focused on the disappearance of 377 tons of explosives sent yesterday from the International Atomic Energy Agency to the United Nations Security Council.

Now, I criticized the Times for failing to note the possible political angle being played by Mohammed El Baradei, head of the IAEA. These stories from late September and early October confirm that something was up:

UN nuclear chief seeking third term as new IAEA board meets:

nuclear watchdog met in Vienna Monday to draw up procedures for electing a new director general, with current chief Mohamed ElBaradei seeking a third term despite US opposition.

And "UN nuke chief heads to S. Korea, Japan":

El Baradei’s visit to Asia is his first official trip since he announced his desire to remain at the helm of the UN agency for a third term. The United States is against his candidacy, but diplomats in Vienna said El Baradei hoped to confirm the support of Seoul and Tokyo during the trip.

...El Baradei has the backing of a majority of the IAEA’s member states, but he will face strong opposition from Washington. Officially the United States says it opposes any official remaining at the head of a UN agency beyond a second term. Unofficially, Washington is unhappy with his performance and wants him out, diplomats in Vienna say.

How did the Times miss that?

In their Day Two story the Times did have space for a sentence which elevated the importance of the story by drawing on the imagined authority and neutrality of Dr. ElBaradei:

"He doesn't do that [send a report to the Security Council] to report trivia," a European diplomat familiar with Dr. ElBaradei's views said. "It's something that is considered grave."

Perhaps the Times could find space for a few more sentences:

It was reported at the end of September that the US would oppose Dr. ElBaradei's bid for a third term. Dr. ElBaradei's letter requesting an update on the status of the Al QaQaa explosives was sent to the President of the Security Council on October 1.

MORE: The LA Times tells us that the NY Times was in a race with CBS to break this Bush-basher. Two pretty credible operations slug it out.

Comments

[Brian]

Your criticism boils down to, "The Times didn't play up a conspiracy theory, and that makes me pissed, since it would have taken some of the heat off of the administration."

Anyway, we've actually got word that there was no search. From an MSNBC transcript:

AR: Was there a search at all underway or did a search ensue for explosives once you got there during that 24-hour period?

LLJ: No. There wasn't a search. The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around. But as far as we could tell, there was no move to

Read the full excerpt here. Before you start screaming that it's on John Kerry's site, remember that if this is indeed the case, we should be hearing more about it soon.

"MORE: The LA Times tells us that the NY Times was in a race with CBS to break this Bush-basher. Two pretty credible operations slug it out."

I admire your good dig, but really, it's kind of, well, you know, odd, for someone who links to people like Don Luskin to make a comment like that.

[TM]

My complaint is that the IAEA has a clear motivation which the Times did not report.

As to the relative credibility of Don Luskin and CBS, after the Killian dfebacle, what can I say?

[Paul Zrimsek]

As long as we're questioning the timing of things.... Shouldn't there have been an orange alert issued yesterday to distract us from the Al Qaqaa imbroglio?

[Brian]

The motivation you assign the IAEA people isn't necessarily relevant and/or fair. It basically assumes that they are willing to play games with international affairs for personal gain, which, while possible, isn't exactly a light charge.

"As to the relative credibility of Don Luskin and CBS, after the Killian dfebacle, what can I say"

Actually, Luskin has probably never had much credibility, so that was a bad example. The CBS Killian debacle is embarrassing, yes, but it doesn't mean that it is on the same level as the Drudge Report or STAR.

[Appalled Moderate]

Brian:

More to the point -- just because El Baradei is an interested party with an anti-Bush grudge does not make the disappearence untrue or less serious. If it weren't for people with axes to grind and a reporter ready to document the grinding, we'd never find out what our government is up to.

This said, it's good to know IF a source has an axe to grind. This is why I tend to like openly biased news. It's a little easier to figure out where the spin might be in the info being dispensed.

In other words -- sorry, TM, I doubt this changes the story. But glad you told us about it.

[Lurking Observer]

Brian:

It would seem that the decision to allow one's political position to be swayed by one's business interests would also be a serious charge, yet one sees this bandied about regarding Dick Cheney and Halliburton all the time.

Similarly, it would seem that the decision to play politics with alerts to be "not exactly a light charge," but as Paul Zrimsek notes, this charge, too, has been levied regularly at the Administration.

It would seem that you have a double standard?

[Reid]

You just don't get it, Tom. Bush is not God. Kerry is infallible. He knows all. He sees all. Let's elect Kerry / God.

[Lance]

Brian,

One problem with relying on the campaigns themselves is quoting selectively. Here is the quote you provided minus truncation. Note the last two sentences:

"No. There wasn't a search. The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around. But as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons, nothing to keep looters away. But there was – at that point the roads were shut off. So it would have been very difficult, I believe, for the looters to get there."

[perfectsense]

Linking to John Kerry's web site to find truth! That would make a pretty funny Saturday Night Live skit.

[martin]

OK-the IAEA is out to get Bush.

But Bush said Allawi is the go-to-guy for Iraq information at their joint press conference some weeks ago.

Now Allawi says this stuff was looted after April 9, 2003.

I'm honestly confused. Why is Allawi's word no longer good? When did Bush's endorsement become inoperative?

Is Allawi now the next Chalabi? Must be something about seeing Congress in session that turns these bastards.

[TM]

I'm honestly confused. Why is Allawi's word no longer good?

Again, I am touched by this faith the reality-based community has in people like Allawi. My question is, how would he know?

I'm not quite sure why he picked that date - April 9 was the day the statue of Saddam was toppled, so maybe it sticks in his head.

But Allawi was certainly not in charge of Iraq on April 9, 2003.

And FYI, the letter was sent by a minion:

Two weeks ago, on Oct. 10, Dr. Mohammed J. Abbas of the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology wrote a letter to the I.A.E.A. to say the Qaqaa stockpile had been lost. He added that his ministry had judged that an "urgent updating of the registered materials is required."

[Slartibartfast]

Wow...some urgency. The guy knew that the material had been lost fifteen months ago, but decided to wait until a couple of weeks ago to urgently tell someone about it.

No, there's nothing at all here that needs further explanation. Move along.

[martin]

Oh this is too much:

"Again, I am touched by this faith the reality-based community has in people like Allawi. My question is, how would he know?"
-TM October 26, 2004

"But what's important for the American people to hear is reality. And the reality is right here in the form of the Prime Minister [Allaw]. And he is explaining what is happening on the ground. That's the best report."
-President Bush, September 23, 2004

And now a Cabinet/Ministry officer is a "minion". I like it. Rumsfeld, the irascible minion.

[Brian]

LO,

"It would seem that the decision to allow one's political position to be swayed by one's business interests would also be a serious charge, yet one sees this bandied about regarding Dick Cheney and Halliburton all the time."

A somewhat similar, but not perfectly analogous situation. For one thing, who are most of the people making those charges?

"Similarly, it would seem that the decision to play politics with alerts to be "not exactly a light charge," but as Paul Zrimsek notes, this charge, too, has been levied regularly at the Administration."

There's actually some evidence of that. But more than that, they have been playing the fear card for a while.

TM, meanwhile, has the dots, but he has yet to prove a connection.

[Brian]

Lance,

I apologize for not getting the entire quote. It was my carelessness and tendency for rushing that is at fault.

perfectsense,

Bush already has God on his side. Kerry, meanwhile, has Osama, Saddam, and Fidel on his side, and from what I have heard, Hitler and Mussuolini endorsed him from Hell, too.

[TM]

TM, meanwhile, has the dots...

I'm getting 'effing measles...

In six days, I can agree with Appalled Moderate. Until then, ElBaradei is all!

[Cecil Turner]

"and from what I have heard, Hitler and Mussuolini endorsed him . . . "

You'd think Chamberlain would be first in line.

[Brian]

Cecil,

That was a superb slam, but an entirely ridiculous suggestion.

[Cecil Turner]

Brian,

Thanks. My tongue was firmly in cheek, as I expect yours was.

[perfectsense]

...and from what I have heard, Hitler and Mussuolini endorsed him...

You forget, despite being dead foreigners, due to the best efforts of Democrat lawyers, they will both vote for Kerry at least 10 times in three swing states.

I love the smell of burning Democrats in the morning, it smells like democracy!

[Brian]

perfectsense,

That, too, was a great slam. Do I have anything else to say? Yes, I do: one week, my friend, one week.

[Jim Rockford]

Regarding Elbaradei, he's noted for:

*Boasting he's never shaken the hand of a jew.

*Recently stating that the US should dismantle it's nuclear weapons, including bunker busters.

*Recently stating that Iran has the right to develop nuclear power.

Conclusions: Elbaradei is an anti-Semite, anti-Israeli fantatic who is also actively working against the national security interests of the US. His agenda is anti-American and anti-Israeli.

[Harry]

Hitler's in hell? I thought Bush was Hitler.

But I digress.

To suggest that this stuff was looted is laughable. 40 truckloads of high explosives "looted?" Sorry, that doesn't pass the common sense test. Some of these high explosives are likely dispersed throughout Iraq to support the planned insurgency and some are likely in Syria with the so called WMDs.

Ever wonder what those satellite images of trucks crossing the Syrian border were about? Ever wonder why the border guards were replaced on those occasions by special guards loyal only to Sadaam?

So we're absolutely sure these explosives were "looted" but we're also absolutely sure that the non-existant WMDs were not looted because we're absolutely sure that they never existed.

I understand ... really.

[Reid]

Excellent point, Harry. Just loading 40 truckloads would take an awful lot of labor, never mind moving them without being seen.

[Lurking Observer]

Brian:

Who's making such charges? Well, I watched the Vice-Presidential debates, and heard John Edwards make them.

So, in short, the Democrats.

Your point?

[Jor]

Uh, The IAEA has warned serveral times that that weapon sites are not being secured. Moreover, they were only informed of the looting THIS MONTH. TM, why are you such a first-order hack? IF they only found out about it thismonth, how could they get excited about it before? WHY dont you start wondering why it was covered up? Thanks, come again. Have some god damn shame for crying out loud.

[charlemagne]

"Today, I speculated that the IAEA prefers John Kerry's approach to Iran over George Bush's."
------------
Right, and if i was an IAEA operative I would do everything I could to get this president deposed. Think about why Bush didn't want to extend the term if the IAEA principal. Here's a clue; Bush's people didn't like the way he was running the organization - it didn't fit their needs for obfuscation.

All this is starting to come back to haunt Bush - just in time as far as I'm concerned.

bye, Georgie!

[charlemagne]

Here's another headline for you:

"Bush seeks second term"
--------
and since then this president has lied and committed more deceptions on the American people than any other president in my memory.

read you rquote above - i.e. - ".El Baradei has the backing of a majority of the IAEA’s member states, but he will face strong opposition from Washington."
--------
Another perfect example of Bush pissing off the international community. We have a VERY incompetent man sitting in the Oval office, surrounded by the most cynical bunch of administration operatives I've ever seen.

Can't wait until next Tuesday - Kerry is peaking!!