Missing High Explosives, Day Two

As they continue their coverage of the missing high explosive story, the Times looks in the mirror and smiles - the Old Grey Lady can still cause talk, as their headline indicates: "Iraq Explosives Become Issue in Campaign".

Well, yes - allegations of Administration incompetence and breathless whisperings of a connection to nuclear weapons can have that effect.

Today's Times story essentially marvels at the flap they created and recycles the spin from the Kerry and Bush camps. This was a clever thrust from the White House:

On Monday afternoon, Ken Mehlman, the Bush campaign manager, wrote a letter to supporters saying that "every day brings a new charge against the president and every charge is pulled right from the headlines of The New York Times."

John Kerry, the candidate of the NY Times! Very slick - work it.

Late in the story we get this:

On Monday evening, Nicolle Devenish, the spokeswoman for the Bush campaign, noted a section of the Times report indicating that American troops, on the way to Baghdad in April 2003, stopped at the Al Qaqaa complex and saw no evidence of high explosives. Noting that the cache may have been looted before the American invasion, she said Mr. Kerry had exaggerated the administration's responsibility.

Finally! We will discuss the NBC News and Fox News items below. The gist - NBC had embedded reporters with a US unit that inspected Al QaQaa on April 10th and did not find any HMX or RDX. However, Fox reports that troops were at the base on April 4.

And a bit later we learn this:

While the White House sought to minimize the importance of the loss of the HMX and RDX - two commonly used military explosives that can also be used to bring down airplanes or to create a trigger for nuclear weapons - the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, took the unusual step on Monday of writing to the United Nations Security Council to report that the explosives were gone. He usually sends a report every six months, and his last was just a few weeks ago.

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

Well. This provides the second prong with which to Fork Kerry - in addition to being the candidate of the NY Times, Kerry is the candidate of the IAEA. Is the IAEA playing games with George Bush? Has that possibility even ocurred to the Times?

Perhaps I can help - Iran has been in the news with the challenge of its nuclear reactor programs. The US has wanted to refer the problem to the Security Council. The IAEA has been working with Britain, Germany and France on a milder approach (backed by Kerry). Hmm, who might Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA prefer to see in office? These questions are too tricky for the Times, so I will refer you to the Sept 30 WSJ:

The outlines of this hardest of all policy issues were evident earlier this week at a conference on nuclear oversight held at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. John Bolton, the State Department's point man on proliferation, opened by saying that the Bush administration wants the International Atomic Energy Agency to stop temporizing over Iran and refer the problem of its nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council.

He noted that it is technically possible for Iran to remain in compliance with the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, then suddenly renounce the NPT and "breakout" with its own bomb. Rather than wait for that moment, the administration wants a Security Council referral, which would elevate the problem politically.

Speaking from the Democratic side of the divide, the Carnegie Endowment's Joseph Cirincione defended the IAEA's inspection process and said the agency isn't referring Iran to the Security Council because the Bush administration's handling of Iraq's WMD created a problem of "trust and credibility."

Do tell. This Oct. 13 story describes new flexibility by the Administration, but of course the IAEA letter that started this story was sent October 1.

Stir together the NBC report, the fact that Kerry is parroting NY Times speculation, and the "fact" that the IAEA is trying to influence this election, and you have a nice cocktail to serve to John Kerry. I'll welcome suggestions for the soundbite, but mine is, "John Kerry has been annointed by the NY Times and the International Atomic Energy Agency, but it is the American people who choose their President."

MORE: Here is a timeline of the Iraqi invasion. I suspect that somewhere in the blogosphere, someone has worked out a detailed accounting of which units were in the area of Al QaQaa on which days, and I would love to see it. So far, Fox has placed US troops there on April 4 (with no reporting as to whether there was HMX present), and NBC says that, as of April 10, there was no HMX or RDX at the site.

Now, I have a question for the reality based community. It was all of six days ago that the Times reported on the intelligence surprises we encountered upon invading Iraq. I will excerpt this:

In a major misreading of Iraq's strategy, the C.I.A. failed to predict the role played by Saddam Hussein's paramilitary forces, which mounted the main attacks on American troops in southern Iraq and surprised them in bloody battles. The agency was aware that Iraq was awash in arms but failed to identify the huge caches of weapons that were hidden in mosques and schools to supply enemy fighters.

Let's see. Saddam's paramilitary is operating in southern Iraq. Al QaQaa is thirty miles south of Baghdad, and was under Saddam's control from March 8 (the last UN inspection) until April 4.

Why would the paramilitary *not* take munitions from Al QaQaa? Is it utterly unreasonable to think that they might have dispersed as much of the materiel as they wanted to hiding places throughout Iraq? If not, why not? There is plenty of evidence that this insurgency was planned - why would they wait until *after* they had lost control of this arms dump to seize the explosives there?

The Times makes no attempt to address this. However, the reality based side has found an anonymous Pentagon source to say that the explosives were there at one time.

And Josh Marshall, in a bit of unintended irony, has three posts up, each taking a different tack in criticizing the Administration for changing their story. I will provide links eventually - his site is freezing on my machine just now.

But he does address my question, and his gist seems to be that moving the stuff before and during the war would have been very difficult, since one large convoy would have been noticed and bombed. Huh? Maybe Saddam's people thought of that, too. One or two trucks at a time couldn't move this stuff to mosques, schools, hospitals, and so forth? Or did we wave a forty truck convoy through Iraq *after* the liberation?

As to attacking the Administration's changing story, this is a standard debate tactic - the Times has surprised everyone with a wild charge. Now the Dems want to shift the story to, gee, unless they answer every wacky question we have immediately, accurately, and consistently, the Administration is lying. Clever, but transparent.

This AP story provides ammo for both sides.

And no one is remarking on the tag end of the NBC NEWS report, where Jim M said that Pentagon sources tell him that there is no evidence that these HMX / RDX explosives have been used in Iraq. I rolled the video and then lost the link. Try going to the NBC news front page, and then clicking on the News Video link. [The Bear is on it].

Here is an account of the Pentagon position.

And another stray thought - this Fox story says that troops on April 4 sent a white powder off to be tested, and it was described as an explosive. What explosive? Since Al QaQaa manufactured conventional munitions, it might be something quite ordinary. Or, well, explosive. But someone must know.

Comments

[Forbes]

You must admit that this is an excellent effort by the Times to dictate a storyline in the final week. For so long, they had lost control of the Evan Thomas "15 point effect"--the Swiftvets, Terry Kerry's "off the cuff" remarks, cBS's fumbled attempt to run interference for Kerry, banging the fear factor drums over protests at the RNC, Sinclair and Stolen Honor, and so many other "stories."

In writing first draft of history, the Times is reasserting its role as its chief author. At this point, should Kerry pull off an upset, the Times will be right there with their investijourno hat on, reporting what "turned the tide."

I noticed the WSJ reported violent crime dropped 3.9% in 2003. Surely, if Bush is blameworthy for theft in Iraq, he's due credit for crime reduction is the US. What page did the Times report that story on?

[martin]

Does not compute. If Bush really believed WMD existed I can't see why we don't know everything that happened there from March 8-April 4. My conclusion-this is proof positive Bush et al never actually believed there were WMD-just look at their priorities.

[Brian]

I'm all in favor of a good tin foil hat conspiracy theory, but I find it hard to believe that the IAEA is trying to screw with the US. So I have to imagine that you are joking.

[BumperStickerist]

I guess if Josh moves and needs to transport his belongs across town he'll rent 3 or 4 UHauls so he can do it at one time.

[Eric Anondson]

El Baradei is seeking a second term in the IAEA, the US is opposing his re-appointment.

Motive for El Baradei to embarrass?

[TM]

Thank you, Eric.

Here we go from late Sept.

And the Sun rises on this story this very day:

...[Oct. 10] The letter was brought to the attention of the council on the last full week before the American presidential elections, quickly becaming a campaign issue. It was also a week after Mr. ElBaradei announced that he would seek another term as the director general of IAEA, despite American opposition.

Bush administration officials say their opposition is not personal but in line with their demand to limit the term of the man at the helm of the agency.

"We told ElBaradei that we are not going to support an extension beyond two terms," a State Department official who asked to remain anonymous told the Sun.

Aware of Washington's opposition, Mr. ElBaradei announced last week that he would seek a third term anyway.

The Egyptian-born nuclear inspection veteran clashed with Washington in the run up to the Iraq war, and more recently when his report on Iran's nuclear program seemed too timid to officials, such as the undersecretary of state John Bolton, the Bush administration point man on non-proliferation issues.

The 35-member IAEA is expected to close applications for candidacies to head the agency by December 31. A new director general will be elected next September. So far Mr. ElBaradei is the only one to announce his candidacy.

Senator Kerry's aides told Reuters recently that they, too, would like to see Mr. ElBaradei replaced, but they would be sensitive to the ruffled feelings in the Arab world and other "political consequences."

[Geek, Esq.]

The NBC story is not the out that Bush supporters wish it was:

Amy Robach: And it's still unclear exactly when those explosives disappeared. Here to help shed some light on that question is Lai Ling. She was part of an NBC news crew that traveled to that facility with the 101st Airborne Division back in April of 2003. Lai Ling, can you set the stage for us? What was the situation like when you went into the area?

Lai Ling Jew: When we went into the area, we were actually leaving Karbala and we were initially heading to Baghdad with the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. The situation in Baghdad, the Third Infantry Division had taken over Baghdad and so they were trying to carve up the area that the 101st Airborne Division would be in charge of. Um, as a result, they had trouble figuring out who was going to take up what piece of Baghdad. They sent us over to this area in Iskanderia. We didn't know it as the Qaqaa facility at that point but when they did bring us over there we stayed there for quite a while. Almost, we stayed overnight, almost 24 hours. And we walked around, we saw the bunkers that had been bombed, and that exposed all of the ordinances that just lied dormant on the desert.

AR: Was there a search at all underway or was, 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 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.

AR: And there was no talk of securing the area after you left. There was no discussion of that?

LLJ: Not for the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. They were -- once they were in Baghdad, it was all about Baghdad, you know, and then they ended up moving north to Mosul. Once we left the area, that was the last that the brigade had anything to do with the area.

AR: Well, Lai Ling Jew, thank you so much for shedding some light into that situation. We appreciate it.

"There wasn't a search." Time to find a new excuse for the Bush administration. Well, they won't--they'll just lie about this like they always do.

[Paul Zrimsek]

I'm afraid I don't follow, Martin. If the Administration's concern was with possible stockpiles of ready-to-use WMD's, it would presumably have given priority to the search for those sites, and the attention given to conventional munitions dumps would have suffered by comparison. There could still have been heightened concern before the war about the sort of stuff kept at Al Qaqaa on account of the possibility of the Hussein regime building it into WMDs later on-- but that concern would have have been downgraded once it became clear that there would not long be an intact Hussein regime to do the building.

None of this is to say that our leadership-- however high up the blame may belong-- was sufficiently careful about the conventional threat posed by all this ordnance. If the NBC story is accurate, the 101st does seem to have been remiss in not blowing up the dump (assuming they didn't have the resources to secure it). I just don't see how it bears at all on the sincerity of the WMD argument.

[TM]

Sorry, the new defense - maybe the Times is not full of BS - does not really cut it for me.

They have not at any point offered evidence that the munitions disappeared after April 4. Does that trouble the "Bush screwed up" crowd in the least, or are you fully behind this Times faith-based initiative?

[Geek, Esq.]

TM:

The Iraqi government says they disappeared after April 9, 2003. An anonymous Pentagon official is quoted as saying that they disappeared after the fall of the Hussein regime.

There is NO evidence that they disappeared before hand. The NBC report, as detailed, means nothing. At the very least, the "NY TIMES LIES" headlines across the rightwing blogosphere are based on faulty information.

Keep in mind: The Bush administration is claiming that they didn't know they were missing until SEPTEMBER 2004. If that's the case, they are grossly incompetent and are not entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry, but the folks in the reality-based community don't fall for Bush's "Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes" routine.

[Forbes]

Minuteman:
Maybe this has been discussed somewhere herein, but Jim Gerhaghty has a report http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200410261142.asp that HDX, in its raw form, for use in making various explosive charges, is consistent in appearance with cornstarch, and is non-volatile until fully fabricated into a device. HDX is a raw material input, and the suggestion that vandals have pilfered it is nonsense--it's theft would require hopper-type trucks, etc. Much ado about nothing.

[martin]

Paul-Al Qa Qaa was listed by the British at least as a high potential WMD facility. I know that's true because I heard it today on the Rush Limbaugh show (seriously) Now this is presumably produced by the same British intelligence outfit whose info was solid enough to be put in a State of the Union address. (That's the one where Bush talks directly to you me-citizens.)

So how did we know Al Qa Qaa had no wmds? What sites did we think had WMDs? Rumsfeld did say he knew specifically whhere they were. Where are the WMD sites we were busy securing? What did we find at these sites?

The conclusion is obvious. Bush and company can't be this stupid. They knew there were no WMDs to worry about it. Remember what didn't get looted-the Oil Ministry.

[Eric Anondson]

Okay, a slight change of tack here. But humor my speculation...

So we know that the munitions are not in Al QaQaa on April 10th and afterwards until today... right?

Is it possible that the US forces have already intercepted these munitions elsewere in the country already? We know the munitions were there once, and are now gone. How do we know that the US forces haven't already re-captured these munitions somewhere in the country and has already destroyed them? I mean, Saddam didn't exactly use the latest in on-demand inventory management. How do we know what was there once, wasn't found in another facility, after they were moved?

Afterall, the US is still in possession of tens-of-thousands of documents of Saddam's that are still waiting on being translated for the first time!

I'm just curious if this hasn't already been investigated...

[Paul Zrimsek]

We didn't need the British to tell us that Al Qaqaa had something to do with Iraq's WMD potential; we already knew that the IAEA had dual-use materials under seal there. But, again, there would have been no particular urgency, at that point, attached to securing materials that the Iraqi regime might have used to make WMDs in the future if only it had a future. What we'd be anxious to locate would be stocks of finished WMDs. How likely is it that Saddam would have stored these at a site subject to regular visits from the IAEA?

[martin]

Not likely Paul-but neither are purple zebras. The game is up. There were no stocks of WMDs and we knew it.
Would your main priority be securing the Oil Ministry if you were concerned a nuclear explosion may occur in downtown bagdhad?

That's why Rumsfeld shrugged off the looting at the time "This what free people do" or whatever he said. He obviously knew there were no WMDs to loot.

[LifeTrek]

Media contridictions or media manipulations - your right - they are thrilled they can still cause the winds to blow! See media contridictions.
DKK