« Arafat | Main | Let's See Kerry Explain THIS... »

A "Reality-Based" news story on Iraqi explosives

By now, everyone has already seen this Washington Times piece alleging that Russian special forces moved some of Saddam's weapons stockpiles out of country just prior to the war, so I won't belabor the point. I will, however, make a few observations.

Now I know many will scoff at this story, because it's from the WT. I realize the WT doesn't carry the same cachet as, say, "unnamed sources" quoted by an anonymous blogger such as Atrios.

But no matter, this is a "Reality-Based" blog, so I will point out that the story's source is indeed named: he is deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security John Shaw.

No neo-con shill, Mr. Shaw, as this account will attest.

Being "Reality-Based" and all, I don't find this story especially shocking. I wouldn't have expected Saddam to leave his coolest boom-toys in the most well known weapons site in all of Iraq for coalition troops to find. Even the Russian angle is scarcely surprising to regular followers of such things.

In fact, I doubt anyone would be paying much attention to this story at all, if the New York Times and the Kerry campaign hadn't prematurely ejaculated all over the "MISSING RDX!!!!!!!" non-story earlier this week.

But they did. Maybe now they'll learn not to be so trigger-happy.


The sheer ignorance of John Kerry showed itself when he said this:

"And our kids, American young forces, are being shot at from weapons stolen from the ammo dumps that this president didn't think was important enough to guard!"

Can you believe the desperation of this buffoon?

Doesn't this decorated war hero know the difference between the missing materiel and conventional weapons?

God, I was livid when I heard this. What a load of BS.

Lynne Cheney was right: this is not a good man.

Mal, the sheer amount of personal enmity you toss at Kerry is astounding. Yes, this appears to be a misstatement as the ammunition lost is not the type you shoot and probably is not used in most of the IEDs that have been the principle killer of our troops. That said, Kathleen Hall Jamieson of www.factcheck.org has noted (on the Jim Lehrer newshour) that is John Kerry, not George Bush, who will adjust when fact checked by organizations like factcheck. Unlike Bush, Kerry will not keep repeating a distortion once it is proven not to be true. (An example being how much the war has cost so far.) George Bush, on the other hand, will keep repeating the same talking point no matter how much it has been questioned/disproven. (His gas tax calculator, long discredited by factcheck.org, based on a tax that Kerry has not proposed for this year is STILL on his website. http://www.factcheck.org/article165.html )

I have never called George Bush an idiot, but you have now called Kerry a buffoon. I have always qualified my criticisms of Bush. I think he is a good man in many ways, but I question whether his policies are good for America. I can be sharp in my disagreement, but I have never said that Bush is not a good man, have never questioned his being, even while, yes, I have questioned at times how he plays the political game.

I happen to think that John Kerry is a very good man and I am proud as a Democrat that he is our nominee. I guess that makes me a buffoon as well.

PE, there is a major difference in what Kerry said here and Bush's mathematical fibs.

Is Bush full of it with his numbers?


So is Kerry with his health care plan being funded by restoring the old rates of 39.3% to the wealthy with no additional funding needed.

But this was blatant outright lying - pandering for votes with no regard to the facts.

Read the quote again, PE. I had to listen to it and it made me almost sick to my stomach.

PE, the stuff that disappeared is NOT weapons but explosives of a type not employed by any insurgents.

He knows this . Holbrooke knows it.

And yet, he does it.

Sorry, but Bush doesn't go into the ether to try to capture votes.

Bush didn't toss in the sexual preference of a person he has never even met in order to score points.

Kerry and Edwards did. The first time, I took it as an off-the-cuff comment from Edwards.

Obviously, after Cahill confirmed (to Kerry's horror) that Mary Cheney was 'fair game' because of her involvement with her Dad's campaign, I realized that I had been snookered.

On another thread, you also asked the question as to what October surprise we thought might be forthcoming if you recall.

I tossed the question back to you as it is the Democrats who seem to specialize in this.

Think Walsh's announcement of his indictment of Weinberger just before the 1992 election.

Think of the NH reporter and his DWI story the Thursday before the 2000 election.

Now this BS which shows that the Times and CBS were colluding for a Sunday surprise, blown only because Drudge leaked it.

Add to that the usual crap about 'secret plans' for a new draft, to destroy social security for seniors, to disenfranchise blacks (read the report about that that MF Berry chaired which says it didn't happen and get back to me) and the sleaze has been all on your side, my friend.

You're a good man, PE, and certainly no buffoon.

But the slimy tricks your candidates have played deserve the condemnation which I give them.

BTW, you may note that OBL has still not been captured, despite the collective wisdom that he had been by your side, to be trotted out this month.

Let me know if anybody from my former party retracts their claims.

I apologize for the obvious anger in this post.

It is not, of course, directed at you.

While that esteemed source Drudge (who brought you the discredited intern affair) may have "reported" on a MSM collusion, it now seems much better for the Kerry campaign that the story did not come out earlier, that there was time for the facts to come out because evidence increasingly supports the initial report that conventional explosives missing from Iraq's Al-Qaqaa installation did disappear after the United States had taken control of Iraq.

Obviously, you didn't heaqr the Pentqagon briefing today.

There is no evidence of it nor conclusiove proof that it didn't happen.

The Pentagon was honest about it.

That said, and given Holbrooke's admission "I just don't know', how does KERRY know exactly?

Post a comment