To address a few of the questions that have been raised about the looting of hundreds of tons of high explosives:
Is this just a normal screw-up?? I don't think so. The fact that this site had been secured by the IAEA means that we knew exactly where it was and what it contained. In principle, we might have (inexplicably) failed to figure out that we should have secured this site; however, this can't be the reason: according to the New York Times, "the International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured, European diplomats said in interviews last week." So we had been told what was at the site, where it was, and why it was important.
Also, as I wrote in my earlier post, it would be comprehensible if something small had vanished from a site we knew we needed to protect -- something like a document or a backpack full of explosives. But what vanished was 350 0r 380 tons of high explosives. To carry away that amount of material would have required a convoy of trucks, and probably also forklifts and so forth. It is not credible to me that anyone could have succeeded in making away with that amount of stuff had we been making any effort at all to guard it.
Finally, these explosives are not only the sort that blew up the plane over Lockerbie, and can be used to take down entire buildings; they are also used in nuclear weapons. And, of course, they can be used in the kinds of bombs that have been blowing up our troops. In addition, according to the Times, "The I.A.E.A. ... has reported that machine tools that can be used for either nuclear or non-nuclear purposes have also been looted."
Since we knew where this site was, and what it contained, we could have planned to protect it. Apparently, we didn't. Why not? According to the Times, "One senior official noted that the Qaqaa complex where the explosives were stored was listed as a "medium priority" site on the Central Intelligence Agency's list of more than 500 sites that needed to be searched and secured during the invasion. "Should we have gone there? Definitely," said one senior administration official. In the chaos that followed the invasion, however, many of those sites, even some considered a higher priority, were never secured." (Further support for the claim that we did not even try to guard this site.) One might ask: why wasn't this a high priority site? What, exactly, did we think was more important than keeping hundreds of tons of dual-use high explosives out of the hands of (a) terrorists, (b) insurgents, and (c) Iraq's neighbors? (The answer can't be 'sites with actual fissile material', since they were looted too.) I want to leave this interesting question to one side, however, since it involves speculation, and see what we can infer from the known facts.
If this senior administration official is right, then there are, as far as I can see, only two possibilities. First, suppose for the sake of argument that there really were other, more urgent priorities that had to be guarded, and we just didn't have enough troops to guard those more urgent sites and this one too. Worse, we didn't have enough troops to guard sites that were higher priority than this one. If so, that seems to me to constitute conclusive evidence that we did not go into Iraq with nearly enough troops.
Second, suppose that there were not other, more urgent sites to be guarded; that this one should have been given a higher priority; but that someone screwed up. In that case, not only did someone make a huge mistake in planning for the war, but no one caught that mistake. How did that happen? Again, this site was on the list of IAEA secured sites containing dual-use materials. Did no one ask, at any point in the war planning, whether we had made plans to secure all those sites? Or at least the ones that contained really, really bad stuff, like fissile material or hundreds of tons of explosives that could be used against our troops? If someone did ask, then the failure to secure this site cannot be an oversight; it must have been a deliberate decision. If no one did, then that seems to me to speak volumes about the quality of the planning for the war.
The timing of this story: In the comments to my last post, someone wondered why this story was coming out right before the election. As I wrote there, the Iraqi government reported this to the IAEA on October 10. The IAEA officially informed the US on October 15. The Times has apparently been working this story for about a week, along with (apparently) 60 Minutes. If their source were either someone in the IAEA or someone in the administration who had not previously known about this (and, according to the NYT, Condoleeza Rice was only informed 'within the last month'), the timing would make perfect sense.
The more interesting question is why the Iraqis only just informed the IAEA. The Nelson Report (as quoted by Josh Marshall) claims that the administration pressured them to keep it secret. According to the Times, the IAEA started putting serious pressure on the Iraqi government to submit reports on the status of weapons sites "early this month", which seems to have prompted the Iraqis to inform them. In any case, we know this much: the looting seems to have occurred in April 2003, during the initial stages of the occupation. The United States did not inform the IAEA of this fact, even though (NYT) "in May 2004, Iraqi officials say in interviews, they warned L. Paul Bremer III, the American head of the occupation authority, that Al Qaqaa had probably been looted."
Moreover, the idea that the administration did not know well before May 2004 that the sites had been looted is not credible. We controlled the country. We knew about this site. If, in addition to not bothering to secure the site, we didn't even bother to check it for over a year, despite repeated warnings from the IAEA, that in itself would require some serious explaining. If, on the other hand, the administration did know that the site had been looted but didn't bother to inform anyone, then the idea that one of their purposes was to keep the news of this screw-up hidden from us, the American public becomes a lot more credible. (What is not credible to me is the idea that we needed to keep this secret for a year and a half to prevent our enemies from finding out about it. Our enemies, the ones with the forklifts and trucks, presumably know exactly what happened. Maybe some other enemies don't, but I can't see that this justifies not informing the IAEA for a year and a half.)
Josh Marshall is reporting various occasions on which these types of explosives have been used since last April. And Juan Cole, writing about the dual-use equipment that was stolen, writes: "How bad a job Bush is doing is clear when we consider that we might well be relieved to know that this equipment went to Iran, since that means Bin Laden doesn't have it."
As I said before, it defies belief.
David Frum on the Diane Rehm Show this morning essentially brushed off the news by saying, "Hey, mistakes happen in war."
Meanwhile, Condoleeza Rice is stumping for Bush in the Midwest.
You need to actually be in the game before you can keep your eye on the ball.
Posted by: carsick | October 25, 2004 at 12:09 PM
Look what showed up in Saudi Arabia last Deecmber!
- source TPM
Posted by: Yermum | October 25, 2004 at 01:06 PM
Anyone recall what the high priority sites that were immediately secured consisted of? Oil fields. Remember? Somehow not very surprising.
Posted by: vida | October 25, 2004 at 01:08 PM
When looking to put a country on its own two feet, securing its main source of revenue probably doesn't make sense at all, to a certain mindset.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 25, 2004 at 01:12 PM
priorities, Slarti...it's a matter of priorities...as well as the supposed reason we invaded in the first place.
Posted by: Edward | October 25, 2004 at 01:15 PM
Well, taking the "it was all for WMDs" tacit assertion as gospel (not that I think it is, but for the purposes of this exchange, and so as not to derail the thread, etc), can you show me how our search for the WMDs has been something other than diligent?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 25, 2004 at 01:18 PM
When looking to protect your country and its armed forces and its allies, securing a main source of nuclear-related weaponry, which was the first of 600 excuses for invading in the first place, probably doesn't make sense at all, to a certain mindset.
Posted by: John Thullen | October 25, 2004 at 01:21 PM
You have to look at WHY we were looking for the WMD, Slarti, so that they wouldn't be used against us.
Posted by: Edward | October 25, 2004 at 01:22 PM
If we didn't secure the sites that we knew the IAEA had listed, that would strike me as less than due diligence. It would be interesting for a reporter to request a list of sites from the IAEA that were inspected and seeing what's going on there now.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | October 25, 2004 at 01:24 PM
I'm confused. So now, WMDs were in Iraq, only we missed them? Help me out, here.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 25, 2004 at 01:25 PM
Ah, the voice of reason.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 25, 2004 at 01:26 PM
Facts seem to be scarce. This particular cache ammunition has dissappeared since the last IAEA inspection taken before the war? And before large convoys of trucks were detected hauling something into Syria. And although this is a sensational number, weren't there far, far greater amounts of munitions scattered all over Iraq? As is usual when Kerry's aides and the media scream the loudest, the rest of the story reflects something less dramatic buried deep and beneath the fold.
Posted by: blogbudsman | October 25, 2004 at 01:45 PM
Here's a fact that isn't scarce. Hundreds of tons of high explosives go missing from a known site in Iraq on or around the time of our invasion. At what level is that not a problem? The fact that there were plenty of other sites that were also looted hardly mitigates this problem.
Why is it so difficult to admit that some very serious mistakes were made in the initial phases of the occupation of Iraq?
Posted by: JerryN | October 25, 2004 at 02:15 PM
No level. It's a problem. It's just a problem that has no solution.
As I've pointed out, there's not yet enough information available to make that claim, unless you've got access to something I don't.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 25, 2004 at 02:19 PM
As I've pointed out, there's not yet enough information available to make that claim, unless you've got access to something I don't.
I'd submit that this incident, when combined with looting of the Tuwaitha complex, destruction of government offices (and their records), etc. have the makings of a strong circumstantial case for that claim.
Posted by: JerryN | October 25, 2004 at 02:43 PM
".. not yet enough information".
Is this like supply side economics, in which there is some maximum and minimum level of taxation, unknown to the both of us, outside of which disaster may occur?
Or is it like pornography, which we'll both know when we see it?
Or is it like the sound of one hand clapping?
Posted by: John Thullen | October 25, 2004 at 02:56 PM
Let's be a bit more clear. The article doesn't contain enough information to determine that the material was even there, when we invaded. So there's not even circumstantial evidence (AFAIK) that there WAS an incident.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 25, 2004 at 02:57 PM
It could be like waiting and seeing what sequence things occurred in, so that one might more intelligently decide whether things are amiss.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 25, 2004 at 03:00 PM
Ah, I see. While other sources provide more info, I agree that there is still a possibility that the material was removed prior to the invasion. Unfortunately, there seems to be no evidence that we made a serious effort to determine the status of this facility at the time. That, in and of itself, was a mistake.
Posted by: JerryN | October 25, 2004 at 03:07 PM
Sorry about posting twice in a row, but the AP is reporting this:
I'd say the evidence is mounting.
Posted by: JerryN | October 25, 2004 at 05:36 PM
Phil Carter (by email to TAPPED) calculates as follows:
Posted by: hilzoy | October 25, 2004 at 07:30 PM
Well, taking the "it was all for WMDs" tacit assertion as gospel (not that I think it is...
Huh? You maintained in another discussion with me -- don't remember which thread, sorry, only that it was at ObWi about a month or so ago -- that the reason for the invasion was serial non-compliance with UN Resolutions pertaining to the full disclosure of WMD materials. Was that previous position merely Devil's Advocate?
Posted by: Anarch | October 25, 2004 at 07:40 PM
Well, see, you gotta keep up with the Real Reasons for the War.
The "Real Reason" was WMD only insofar as the fear of WMD was useful to scare Americans into supporting an unprovoked invasion of another country.
Once the invasion was accomplished, WMDs were something to joke about (as Bush did so memorably), and we could be encouraged to believe in a new Real Reason: "spreading freedom and liberty." That one came a cropper when Fallujah rebelled, whereupon Iraqis stopped being victims of an oppressive regime and started being ungrateful sods who should simply be bombed to bits.
The latest Real Reason for the war is "flypaper." We would buy our safety by turning Iraq into Terrorist Central. Since there are, as we all know, only a finite number of terrorists in the world, and since law and order have all but completely broken down in Iraq, it is now an irresistable place where all the finite number of terrorists in the world can go to rob, kidnap, and kill to their hearts content.
Seen in this light, the "failure" to secure those 380 tons of high explosives is in fact a strategic master stroke. About the only problem with turning Iraq into a Club Med for terrorists was that said terrorists were eventually going to run out of firepower. Now that's been taken care of: 700,000 pounds of high explosives should be enough to keep buildings, vehicles, and human beings blowing up very satisfactorially for quite some time.
Posted by: CaseyL | October 25, 2004 at 09:44 PM
I doubt if we'll hear a lot of apologies today.
Posted by: blogbudsman | October 26, 2004 at 05:40 AM
Blogbuds: I doubt if we'll hear a lot of apologies today.
Do we ever?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | October 26, 2004 at 05:52 AM
Once, again so many have jumped the gun and are ready to crucify the administration... but as so often has been the case in the past... the analysis is flawed.
I do think some apologies are due from Jes and Hilzoy and some others... but I doubt we will hear it.
As with so many other posts at this site this one also defies belief... yet again. I believe I will be stepping out with Moe after the election.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry about Hilzoy using the NY Times as a reliable source of information...
"It is not credible to me that anyone could have succeeded in making away with that amount of stuff had we been making any effort at all to guard it."
I suppose it isn't... since it didn't happen that way.
"NBC News reported that on April 10, 2003, its crew was embedded with the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division when troops arrived at the Al Qaqaa storage facility south of Baghdad.
While the troops found large stockpiles of conventional explosives, they did not find HMX or RDX, the types of powerful explosives that reportedly went missing, according to NBC."
Let's criticize the Bush administration, but Hussein there's no way a nice guy like him would hide or disperse WMD.
From Hilzoy:
"In that case, not only did someone make a huge mistake in planning for the war, but no one caught that mistake. How did that happen?"
"If no one did, then that seems to me to speak volumes about the quality of the planning for the war."
Volumes are being spoken for sure... but since troops did go there, maybe they did have a plan for the war and the reality is that Hilzoy's critique is consistently unfair and flawed.
Hilzoy, it's not the administrations credibility that has been lost with me... it's yours.
Posted by: Blue | October 26, 2004 at 10:00 AM
The NY Times isn't a reliable source, but NBC is unimpeachable? I think Josh Marshall drove a stake through that. How was Hussein was able to disperse it between the time that the inspectors left, and the troops arrived and was able to avoid having those 380 tonnes of material get detected by air recon?
I don't think it is a slam dunk case, with the fog of war and all that, but the administration cannot expect any breaks, given the way that it has ran its campaign. Is Kerry et al overhyping this? Perhaps, but the administration should just get used it.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | October 26, 2004 at 10:25 AM
I do think some apologies are due from Jes and Hilzoy and some others... but I doubt we will hear it.
*raises eyebrow*
You know, Blue, I can think of a few people on this site I probably owe an apology to. But you're not one of them.
Nor does it appear, despite all the fast-talk on the part of the administration, that there is any clear excuse why these explosives were not made secure by the US occupation before they could be looted.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | October 26, 2004 at 11:16 AM
Hell, it's not even clear, despite fast-talking on the part of Jesurgislac, whether there were any explosives there to secure. But don't let that stop you.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 26, 2004 at 11:19 AM
Slarti Hell, it's not even clear, despite fast-talking on the part of Jesurgislac, whether there were any explosives there to secure. But don't let that stop you.
Well, you know, I wasn't there (and neither were you, I assume) so we're both going by eyewitness reports. You're assuming (apparently) that Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, was lying or mistaken when he reported on April 5, 2003 that troops found
No effort was made to secure the site, and those explosives have now been looted. That's what all the fuss is about. Or, if you're that skeptical, Peabody was lying or mistaken or even a very prescient Kerry supporter. Something. Anything, evidently, other than admit a serious mistake was made.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | October 26, 2004 at 11:26 AM
Jes,
I don't think you or Hilzoy owe me an apology... it's the Bush administration you both owe an apology to.
I am not sure what all will come out about this subject... but I didn't wrongly use it to bash the Bush administration.
lib,
"Duelfer agreed that a large amount of material had been transferred by Iraq to Syria before the March 2003 war. "A lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria," Duelfer said. "There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points. We've got a lot of data to support that, including people discussing it. But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say."
Guess there was some recon to indicate alot of activity...
Posted by: Blue | October 26, 2004 at 11:28 AM
I don't think you or Hilzoy owe me an apology... it's the Bush administration you both owe an apology to.
*raises both eyebrows*
They screwed up - again and again and again - and you think that I or Hilzoy should apologize for it?
Really, no.
I am not sure what all will come out about this subject... but I didn't wrongly use it to bash the Bush administration.
Neither did I, nor did Hilzoy. When the Bush administration screws up, their screw-ups may be used, rightly, to bash them. To assert that no matter what stupid mistakes they make, no one should be allowed to criticize them, is truly, really, unAmerican.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | October 26, 2004 at 11:33 AM
From the NBC story:
So, within the Pentagon, we have what looks like a "he said"-"she said" story. Except that on closer inspection, we don't. We have one source making a specific claim - the site was inspected and the materiel was determined to be intact immediately after the invasion. We have other sources hypothesizing about alternate realities - suggesting that the materiel might have been moved beforehand. BTW - the first source's statement in not contradicted by the report from the NBC embed, who did not see the site until some time in April.
Posted by: JerryN | October 26, 2004 at 12:10 PM
blue, I think it is a leap to say that Duelfer said that there was a lot of traffic between Syria and Iraq, so it is apparent that the material must have been on those trucks. Making the assumption that the administration actually believed there were WMD, I would think that they would have attempted to track attempts to move them. It should (again assuming that there was an honest belief that there were WMD and that they could have been used against US troops) have rung every alarm bell available if they started moving stuff out of Al Quaqaa.
I'm sure that forensic analysis of the various car bombs should put this to rest, and I'm sure that the army is doing that, so where are the reports assuring us that rather than the insurgents, Syria has it?
Posted by: liberal japonicus | October 26, 2004 at 12:27 PM
There's now a timeline up on this story at Body and Soul.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | October 26, 2004 at 04:47 PM
Too bad it's completely inaccurate. Notably the March 8th event.
Al Qaqaa (is it pronounced "caca"? Just wondering) was in fact visited by weapons inspectors on March 8. To inspect missiles. There's no other recorded inspection that occurred at Al Qaqaa on March 8th. And for Body and Soul to conclude what they did from the material cited is...well, it's exaggerating. Which is a lot nicer than saying what it really is: making things up.
Now, if there's other material to cite, perhaps they ought to consider doing so.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 26, 2004 at 04:57 PM
Too bad it's completely inaccurate.
Fine, Slarti. Since you've examined all the available evidence and can show Jeanne exactly where she's got it wrong, why don't you head over to Body and Soul and post your corrections, with citations, there? Rather than just lazily claiming "Oh, it's completely inaccurate" without providing any evidence to show that you have been able to refute every date and every piece of evidence cited in the timeline?
Or admit you're just making stuff up and you don't know for sure it's inaccurate: do you?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | October 26, 2004 at 07:19 PM
The 'q' in arabic is pronounced like a k, except that instead of making it near the front of your mouth, you make it as far back as possible, somewhere around your tonsils.
As for the actual story, Josh Marshall quotes MSNBC:
And from CBS:
Posted by: hilzoy | October 26, 2004 at 07:50 PM
This was good attempt at a smear job in the closing week of the election... but this dog just didn't hunt.
What's really ironic about it is that they tripped over thier own reporting.
Posted by: Blue | October 27, 2004 at 10:41 AM
No smear job at all.
This appointed administration's response is telling; you have the State Dept. admitting a major "screw-up." You have several versions coming out of the Pentagon, all of which indicate there was a distinct lack of planning regarding known weapons caches. You have Bush refusing to answer any questions on the matter, but Cheney seems to be indicating it's Kerry's fault.
This is really a two-fer as to why Bush should be retired to Crawford. First, a known weapons cache left unsecured indicates an almost unbelievable lack of planning. Second, it shows once once more the rationale to invade Iraq--securing weapons--wasn't really the rationale at all.
Posted by: Jadegold | October 27, 2004 at 10:55 AM
What's really ironic about it is that they tripped over thier own reporting.
It is ironic, isn't it? You'd think that after the White House had had 18 months to sit on this story, they'd have at least got their cover story straight. Instead, they kept putting out different stories. "Er, maybe it all went before we got there!" (er, no) - "Look, Kerry's blaming the army!" (er, no)
Nice to see you've noticed the irony, Blue. Welcome on board.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | October 27, 2004 at 10:56 AM
What IAEA was doing on any given day is fairly simple to find. Why some don't bother to look isn't my concern, and I'm not some sort of ombudsman (blogbudsman?), so it's not incumbent on me to set people straight. Still, you could have followed the link and seen for yourself. Could be that allergy to data, though.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 27, 2004 at 11:06 AM
Why some don't bother to look isn't my concern, and I'm not some sort of ombudsman (blogbudsman?), so it's not incumbent on me to set people straight.
If you're going to make wild contradictory assertions, Slarti, then you need to back them up with hard data. If you fail to do so, then you may reasonably be assumed to be part of the faith-based community who simply don't want to believe there can be anything at all to be criticized about the Bush administration.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | October 27, 2004 at 11:27 AM
Well, I guess that rules me out, since I made a distinctly un-wild contradictory offering of data, which you continue to avoid seeing. Maybe it's some sort of compulsive disorder.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 27, 2004 at 11:34 AM
Oh intellectual honesty where art thou?
From the NY Post...
"Nobody knows what happened to the stuff. It's theoretically possible that it was looted after the war's conclusion — though, as Ed Morrissey points out at captainsquartersblog.com, it would have taken 100 men working 12 hours a day for two weeks to shlep the stuff away. And that would surely have been spotted by somebody.
It seems far more likely that Saddam had the materiel moved. According to one report, the United Nations last visited the facility on March 8, a week before the war began. But the U.N.'s major report on the facility came out two months earlier. Saddam could have been moving the materiel out over the course of the two months before the war began — maybe into Syria. Who knows? That's the point. Who knows? Certainly not the Times. Certainly not John Kerry."
And I might add certainly not anyone posting here...
Posted by: Blue | October 27, 2004 at 01:03 PM
Blue bemoans the lack of intellectual honesty and then cites a kooky rightwing blogger *and* the NYPost?
Wow.
On a related note, the Weekly World News reports Bat Boy has a crush on Jenna!
Posted by: Jadegold | October 27, 2004 at 01:30 PM
Well, I guess that rules me out, since I made a distinctly un-wild contradictory offering of data, which you continue to avoid seeing.
I must have missed where you managed to prove your wild and contradictory assertion that the whole timeline was completely inaccurate. To do that, you'd have to take each event/date on it and show how it was wrong.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | October 27, 2004 at 01:35 PM
If you're taking "completely" as in each and every item, then no, it may not be completely inaccurate. The March 8 is not supported by IAEA's own reports. There's no indication at all that any of the HE stores under seal were viewed by IAEA on March 8.
Which sort of shoots down the entire premise, does it not? In fact, IAEA itself, in the article linked to in the very next link in the timeline, says it last inspected the seals on March 15. Which is, inexplicably, at odds with what IAEA reported it did that day. And the link on the "Sometime after the invasion" event doesn't support the claim made there at all. Two major errors in a row and I lose interest. So, completely inaccurate retracted; erroneous proposed as replacement.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 27, 2004 at 01:58 PM
This whole discussion is yet another case of "A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest."
Absolutely amazing how two different people can look at the same thing and see two totally different events. Just stunning to me. I mean, in theory I know that people work that way, but it's hard to believe how it continues to happen, over and over.
If George Bush were caught getting oral sex from an intern, and then lying about it under oath, I have no doubt that Blue and Slarti would defend him.
If you're a Bush supporter, you are going to spin EVERYTHING pro-Bush. If you're a Kerry supporter, similarly on the other side.
Does anybody among the commenters have a commitment to the truth that supersedes their commitment to "hooray for my team"?
If not, then what's the point of any of this?
Posted by: Kent | October 27, 2004 at 04:37 PM
I try to. And -- it's always odd dealing with people who don't know me, and can't put this in context, but -- I have always previously thought that the candidate I did not favor had something to be said for him, and that there was some X such that, if I were a single issue voter and X were my single issue, I would vote for the opposition, since they had it right. This is the first time in my adult life that I have not felt that way, and I find it really spooky.
Posted by: hilzoy | October 27, 2004 at 04:42 PM
See, this is just exactly the bone I pick with Jesurgislac: the tendency, nay, preference for going with your gut when making an assessment, when the data is right there.
That, and the mind-reading thing. But I get that, I really do. I mean, if you can tell me what I think about a particular issue, then you don't really need to ask me, do you?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 27, 2004 at 04:55 PM
the tendency, nay, preference for going with your gut when making an assessment, when the data is right there.
Must... resist... temptation... ;)
Posted by: Josh | October 27, 2004 at 05:20 PM
Kent,
I can offer up quite a list of things that I wouldn't defend Bush on. At this site, I have even offered to for anyone interested, but they never care to listen.
I only defend Bush against blatant attacks that aren't accurate or don't describe the situtation.
Don't even get me started talking about Bush and the deficit... Bush and illegal aliens... the list goes on...
Posted by: Blue | October 27, 2004 at 07:47 PM
I only defend Bush against blatant attacks that aren't accurate or don't describe the situtation.
Then why are you trying to defend Bush against this perfectly accurate attack?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | October 27, 2004 at 07:50 PM
Jade,
When it comes to kooky... kettle meet pot.
What part of the post did you find dishonest? Please be detailed.
Posted by: Blue | October 27, 2004 at 07:51 PM
So, completely inaccurate retracted; erroneous proposed as replacement.
Ah. I only just caught this - okay, I retract comments I made about how you're claiming "completely inaccurate".
Post these comments on Jeanne's blog. She lives in a reality-based universe: if you can prove your point, I think she'll change the timeline.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | October 27, 2004 at 08:16 PM
Blue:
NY Post. Some loser in MN who thinks he's Lord Nelson when he's not handling returns at WalMart. Yup, some pretty powerful sources you have there.
Which part did I find dishonest? The part that began with "Oh" and ended with "here...."
I'll not engage in a discussion of 100 men working 12 hour shifts for two weeks because Captain Eddy has no concept of what he's talking about. Perhaps, the men in Minnesota aren't what they used to be; judging by Cap'n Ed's portly appearance, maybe it would take eight-plus EdYears.
However, Peter W. Galbraith does have a clue; he notes it was very likely the HE was looted over a period of nine months or more. Moreover, it shouldn't be surprising insurgents, terrorists, or garden-variety criminals hoping to turn a buck could muster the wherewithal to pilfer 380 tons of anything from an unsecured site over a nine month period or more.
David Kay, who might be expected to know a tad bit more about these weapons than, say, Cap'n Eddy of HMS WalMart--says it's "implausible" the material was removed in the period from the last IAEA inspection and the arrival of US troops about 4 weeks later.
Plus you have the accounts of the Iraqis who were in charge of the facility saying that not so much as a sheet of paper disappeared from the site prior to Saddam going down the spider hole.
Posted by: JadeGold | October 27, 2004 at 09:03 PM