Explosivesgate Roundup: Day III
October 28, 2004 04:39 AM
TRUTH LAID BEAR BLOG
It just keeps getting worse for Senator John Kerry (D-UN). There have been several huge developments on the story, none of them good for him, and leading me to suspect that by the time this is all over, we'll find that there are satellite photos of Kerry and Edwards in December 2002 personally hauling explosives out of Al Qaqaa while Mohamed El Baradei and Kofi Annan sit waiting in the trucks.
Some folks might be thinking "wow, this story is moving amazingly fast,", and I'll admit that was my first reaction. But the reason this story looks like it is moving quickly is because other news organizations are now doing the work that the NYT should have done in the first place. And it is going fast because, frankly, it wasn't all that damned hard.
Here's the latest, in more or less reverse chronological order (because that's how we bloggers do it, by golly):
On the nutty fringe, the Guardian reports this morning that a terrorist group, the Al-Islam's Army Brigades, claims to be in possession of a large portion of the missing explosives:
The group, calling itself Al-Islam's Army Brigades, made the claim in a video broadcast today and warned that it will use the explosives if foreign troops threaten Iraqi cities.
Its video statement said:"Heroic Mujahideen have managed by the grace of God and by coordinating with a...number of the officers and the soldiers of the American intelligence to obtain a very huge amount of the explosives that were in the al-Qaqaa facility, which was under the protection of the American forces."
The choice of whether to apply 'nutty fringe' to The Guardian, the terrorists, or both is left as reader's choice.
The other major revelation of the morning is that ABC News is now reporting that the amount of explosives reported by missing by the Iraqi interim government may be wildly overstated:
"International Atomic Energy Agency documents obtained by ABC News and first reported on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" indicate the amount of missing explosives may be substantially less than the Iraqis reported:.
The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing — presumably stolen due to a lack of security — was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility.
But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over 3 tons of RDX was stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.
The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the start of the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003."
What the ABC News piece doesn't do is connect the dots. If the IAEA itself knew that the amount of RDX present in Jan 2003 was only 3 tons, why did Mohamed El Baradei, the head of the IAEA, repeat the claim of 141 tons in his memo to the Security Council?
Captain Ed adds:
"This is the type of research that one would have expected from a news organization that considers itself professional -- doing research before reporting on something in order to avoid decontextualizing it, or getting critical facts incorrect. In short, one would expect the geniuses at the Gray Lady to understand the difference between 3 tons and 380 tons, and to get the numbers right before publication.
And for those lagging behind the dizzying speed of this particular news cycle, the big news from last night was that, well, the Russians did it. No, really:
Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.
John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.
"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."
And this from the Financial Times:
"In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Shaw said: “For nearly nine months my office has been aware of an elaborate scheme set up by Saddam Hussein to finance and disguise his weapons purchases through his international suppliers, principally the Russians and French. That network included... employing various Russian units on the eve of hostilities to orchestrate the collection of munitions and assure their transport out of Iraq via Syria.”
Wizbang was on this one early, and is all over the NYT for their bizarre attempts to get this story back under control.
Temporary InstaGal Megan McArdle adds: "I wouldn't want to be Kerry's strategy team trying to explain on the stump how John Kerry's going to make the war go better by getting the other members of the UN Security Council on board."
And folks are also pointing back toward an incident in April 2003 where a Russian convoy of "diplomats and journalists" came under fire from U.S. forces. Bill at INDC is on that angle:
"I'm speculating here, but it's certain that the US military was aware of some form of Russian assistance to the Iraqis prior to and during the war, and it's possible that Coalition Special Forces may have actually taken intentional military action against the Russians in an attempt to disable portions of a "diplomatic" convoy that moved towards the Syrian border. If the attack was purposeful, it may have taken place under the assumption that the Russians were transporting weapons, WMD components and/or other evidence that detailed any illegal pre-war relationship between Russia and Iraq."
Roger Simon weighs in on both of the above angles and the shoddy big media coverage:
"Now look, we all have a right to be outraged. These are the same media which have been telling the country how badly the Iraq War is going. These are the same media who are lopsidedly favoring Kerry over Bush in this election. Only this time their partisanship may have trapped the Senator. In his excitement with the New York Times explosives story, Kerry has gone around the country trumpeting Bush's "mistake" for anyone in shouting distance. Now it's his mistake. Let's hope the Senator has flipped his last flop."
Spoons keeps his reaction short and sweet ( "The New York Times and CBS News: enemies of Democracy.") and has a number of updates on the Russian angle.
JustOneMinute has many updates on the story, and asks:
"Now, serious question. Kerry's basic position is, "Omigod, terrorists got 380 tonnes of high explosives, vote Bush out now". Bush's basic position is, there are several hundered thousand tonnes of explosives in Iraq, bad people had access to them before, they still do, we don't know the facts, but we do know that Kerry will say anything.
Is Kerry exhibiting the tempermant of a sound, thoughtful leader, or does he sound like he would say anything? Look, if this is opportunistic late-election screaming, fine. But does anyone think he is serious? And are they worried if he is? Does he really believe everything he reads in the Times?"
Powerline's Deacon adds:
"If Shaw's version, as reported by the Washington Times, holds up and (as importantly) gets heard, the consequences for Kerry could be serious. The Senator will have (a) jumped to a conclusion that wasn't supported by the facts, (b) assumed the incompetence of our troops, (c) confirmed President Bush's position that Iraq had weapons worth worrying about, and (d) unleashed evidence that, as Rocket Man notes, suggests that chemical and biological weapons could easily have been moved out of Iraq just before we invaded. In light of the final point, though, what puzzles me is this: if the Defense Department has evidence that the Russians helped clean out Al Qaqaa, why haven't we heard about this before now (or did I just miss it). Evidence that Iraqi weapons, any weapons, were moved out of the country by the Russians would have been helpful to the administration long before now. Maybe we learned about it recently, as relations with Russia have improved."
Last but most certainly not least, Jeff Goldstein is also on the case, declaring "Nipple condition: stiff enough to pick corn out of Jimmy Carter’s molars."
truthlaidbear.com |
