From this article in the NYT:
All of these stories would be getting more play right now if it weren’t for the Al Qaqaa mess. Still, one can understand why the right is so upset.
After all, Al Qaqaa illustrates in a particularly graphic way the failures of Mr. Bush’s national security leadership. U.S. soldiers passed through Al Qaqaa, a crucial munitions dump, but were never told that it was important to secure the site. If administration officials object that they couldn’t have spared enough troops to guard the site, they’re admitting that they went in without enough troops. And the fact that these explosives fell into unknown hands is a perfect example of how the Iraq war has worsened the terrorist threat.
To which I wrote this idiot back:
You need to read something beyond your own newspaper:
Al Qaqaa wasn’t marked “critical” there were other more critical dumps. It was on the “medium” list if I remember correctly.
Out of 1,000,000 tons of explosives, you’re talking about 377? No, wait, 143, no wait, 3 tons?
All we really know is that there were IAEA seals, we don’t know if there was anything there for sure…
Contrast that with some actual physical facts:
380 tons would take 76 5 ton truckloads to “loot”. That would have been somewhat obvious seeing as how the road to the facility went through the 3rd ID. There’s no way the explosives were there when we invaded.
So if you consider these explosives truly important rather then just something to beat up President Bush about, then this really argues President Bush’s case. The US had asked the IAEA to destroy the explosives: no go. Then we stalled the invasion to try to get more world support. Meanwhile, the explosives get moved.
What’s your argument exactly? That Kerry would have dicked around with the UN longer before he got a no from the coalition of the bribed so that even more explosives would be missing?
Recent Comments