Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

380 tons of oops
Posted by: Jon Henke on Monday, October 25, 2004

Is there an excuse for this? I can't think of it....
The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year.
In a country absolutely full of weapons, there's certainly no reason to expect we could guard every little stockpile of munitions. But this was no pile of guns. A truckful of these explosives could make the 1983 Marine barracks truck-bomb in Beirut--241 Marines dead--look like a piker.

And these explosives just disappeared.

Anybody wanna lay odds on how the thieves in question feel about the United States and the current government of Iraq? Anybody?

It's hard to see where blame should be assigned, though. Was the failure one of policy, of imagination, of troop levels, or of responsibility. As John Cole notes, securing weapons is hardly a novel concept to the military...
Every [night] that I was in the field as a soldier, my platoon sergeant and butterbar conducted a sensitive items check, and each person made sure that he has his weapon, protective mask, an/pvs-7's, and other items. Every night. Business stopped if one boresight device or one set of night vision goggles was missing. In peacetime, if someone lost a weapon, the base closed.

We can't check nightly on 380 frigging tons of explosives?
  • Was there an administration policy routing troops away from securing these threats in Iraq?

  • Which component of the military was responsible for securing these zones, and how did they make their decisions about what to secure and what not to secure?

  • What did the administration and the military do following urgent warnings from the IAEA?

  • Why were these zones simply not a priority?

  • What assumptions did the brass make, and what did they think would happen there?

Finally, who will take responsibility? And will the Right demand accountability as stridently as will the Left? I hope so.

UPDATE: John Cole, Tom Maguire and various commenters here point out this potentially exculpatory line:
...A senior Bush administration official said that during the initial race to Baghdad, American forces "went through the bunkers, but saw no materials bearing the I.A.E.A. seal." It is unclear whether troops ever returned.
I concede the possibility that this could lessen the blame on the administration and/or military, but there are a few questions to be answered first....

  • "White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year" - why did the White House and Pentagon concede that the explosives had vanished after the invasion?

  • "[Condoleezza Rice] was informed within the past month that the explosives were missing." - why was this brought up just within the last month, if it's been known since the the troops first went in? What did they tell her..."Still no weapons at Al Qaqaa"?

  • "Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded" - if there were "no materials", why can the administation officials not explain why they were not safeguarded? If such was the case, that seems a very good explanation, indeed.

  • "a senior official from Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology wrote that the stockpile disappeared after early April 2003 because of "the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security"." - what is the basis of this conclusion? Theft and looting indicates a post-war event. The removal of the materials prior to the war would not be theft/looting.

  • "In the chaos that followed the invasion, however, many of those sites, even some considered a higher priority, were never secured." - why not?

  • "If [Iraqi's had moved the explosives to nearby fields], the experts say, the Iraqi must have broken seals from the arms agency on bunker doors and moved most of the HMX to nearby fields, where it would have been lightly camouflaged - and ripe for looting." - why were we not there to secure it? It seems like we'd be interesting in spending sufficient time ensuring the security of a major facility.

  • "But the Bush administration would not allow the agency back into the country to verify the status of the stockpile." - In other words, the administration said "we don't need your help". But they did.

Whether or not troops did a run-through on their way through Iraq, these seem like still-relevant questions. I think Cole and Maguire are jumping at a too-small glimmer of salvation.

UPDATE II: A commenter at Obsidian Wings points out that something familiar showed up in Saudi Arabia last December...
The location of the hideout was not given but details of the weapons cache suggest a large storage space. The official news agency SPA said the arsenal included 38.4 tons of "RDX explosive materials"...
Coincidence? If not, it would be very interesting to learn of the conduit for their arrival in Saudi Arabia.

UPDATE III: Like Cole and Maguire, Captain Ed is skeptical of this story, writing...
Most egregiously, the failure to protect less than 0.02% of the total estimated munitions in Iraq has been seized upon by Kerry's campaign as an example of "incompetence":
I think Captain Ed is paying too little attention to some of the questions the article raises--as I noted above--but he's certainly missing the point about the 380 tons of explosives, by comparing it to "more than 2 million tons of ammunition stored in hundreds of storage places". Certainly, as a percentage of the total weight of munitions, this 380 tons is small.

But, relative to the rest of our munitions, Little Boy and Fat Man were just little....tiny...bombs. Obviously, "percentage of munition weight" is an inadequate measure.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Did they mean the stuff disappeared after the invasion started or after it ended? Slight bit of difference there. How big is that weapons dump compared to the others the we found?
Written By: Mark
URL: http://
There are estimated to be 600,000 tons of munitions in Iraq. We have so far taken care of 100,000 tons. The stuff is all over the place -- one province has 103 known munitions spots.

Written By: John
URL: http://
Guys, this was a *very* large, *very* well-known weapons dump that contained something far more important than normal munitions. This was a location we'd been warned about prior to the war, and over the course of the past couple years.

It's simply not comparable to a weapons cache of machine guns.
Written By: Jon Henke
OK, what's so special about this 380 tons of explosive over the other ungodly amounts? I assume that all 380 tons aren't the really special stuff to which you allude.
Written By: Mark
URL: http://
From the story:

- "the explosives could be used in major bombing attacks"

- "The explosives could also be used to trigger a nuclear weapon"

- "The explosives missing from Al Qaqaa are the strongest and fastest in common use by militaries around the globe."

- "A special property of HMX and RDX lends them to smuggling and terrorism"

This wasn't just TNT. And, despite warnings, we left the barn door open.
Written By: Jon Henke
Kerry said he personally visited the dump every night and warned Bush of the problems.
Written By: Sharp as a Marble
"The explosives could also be used to trigger a nuclear weapon"

In order to achieve critical mass that is required in a nuclear detonation, the explosives must be precisely machined and assembled around a fissionable core. This is a pretty high tech process that can't be done just anywhere.
Written By: Curt Mitchell
URL: http://
I don't think was saying that the thieves would be able to build a bomb, but rather that this was extremely powerful and high-quality explosives -- not just a store of run-of-the mill TNT.

This is pretty baffling, if the story holds up. Reading the AP story, though, it's pretty confusing: the explosives were reported missing AFTER the US invasion in 2003, but Saddam's regime had already told the IAEA that the explosives were being transferred from Al-Qaqaa well BEFORE the invasion. It's not clear to me whether the explosives were really taken by looters/terrorists or if this is just a case of shoddy book-keeping by the Iraqis.
Written By: bob
URL: http://
From NYTimes article:

"Earlier this month, in a letter to the I.A.E.A. in Vienna, a senior official from Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology wrote that the stockpile disappeared after early April 2003 because of 'the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security.'"

Bagdhad fell on April 9, 2003 and "major combat operations" were ended in May 2003. Furthermore, it's not clear how the Iraqi minister knows that the explosives disappeared in early April - as opposed to some time earlier - due to looting or is simply assuming that is the case.

According to the same article:

"A senior Bush administration official said that during the initial race to Baghdad, American forces 'went through the bunkers, but saw no materials bearing the I.A.E.A. seal.'"

Consequently, the materials may have been moved out by Hussein's regime during or prior to the invasion. They may have been lightly camoflagued and placed in the nearby fields or they may have been moved elsewhere. While the administration certainly should have secured Al Qaqaa against further looting, without more details, it's difficult to tell how much blame they should shoulder for the missing explosives.
Written By: Tom Ault
URL: http://
Tom brought up the most important part of the story. Our guys looked at the site, there were no I.A.E.A. seals. That leads one to the inescapable conclusion that this stuff was gone when our troops got there, else the seals would have been intact.
Everyone, Left and Right asks the wrong question.
The only important question to be asked is "What was in all those trucks going into Syria in the weeks and months of lead-time in our rush to war?" A secondary question is what happened to the content of those trucks?
Written By: Peter
URL: http://
Slow down, Jon. Your strength as a commenter relies on excellent reading comprehension and an ability to response to events with a calm, reasoned, and well written analysis. You seem to be inferring more from the article than you should. There is still quite more to this story, I'm sure. It could end up being much like the stories about the looting of treasures from the Iraqi national museums.

The first point that strikes me concerns the timeline of the removal of the explosives. According to the NY Times article, during the push towards Baghdad, the bunkers were searched and "no materials bearing the I.A.E.A. seal" were found. While it is possible that the explosives were simply overlooked, my first thought is that they had already been moved. If, indeed, Mr. Hussein were planning a counter-insurgency as his response to the Coalition invasion, securing a large stock of high explosives might be a priority. The article suggests that at least two of the bunkers had been bombed during the invasion. I would assume that even today, a forensics examintion of those bunkers would reveal whether or not the explosives were present during the bombing. If as the IAEA experts speculate, "the Iraqis followed their standard practice of moving crucial explosives out of buildings", why would they simply move these vaulables munitions to an adjacent field where they might easily be found by Coalition ground troops?
Despite the acknowledgement from White House and Pentagon officials, and the letter from the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology, the the article never presents any evidence that the explosives were at Al Qaqaa during or after the invasion. (I'm curious as the nature of this acknowledgement, and would be interested in reading a transcript.) So why should one infer that the explosives were looted after the invasion as opposed to intentionally transferred prior to it?

There is not any mention about the Iraq Survey Group interm progress report or final report. (That the article does state that the ISG has been assigned to investigate the missing explosives is noted.) As the IAEA had sealed these munitions and issued warnings, surely David Kay or Charles Duelfer must included something about them in the reports. These long reports need to searched for references to Al Qaqaa.

The article is highly suggestive of neglience on behalf of the military, CPA, and ultimately, the administration. But it is by no means conclusive.
Written By: JP Sobel
URL: http://
Believe the NYTimes at your peril...
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
The way the article was written it almost sounds like we found the pile, left the pile to go get a coke and came back to an empty barn. I doubt that we had control of it. 380 tons doesn't get picked up by a Datsun full of scofflaws. This stuff was probably shipped out prior to our arrival and we never DID have control of it.
It makes me wonder more about the trucks heading to Syria.
Anyway, if you ask me, this isn't a good thing but is old news.
Written By: mark m
URL: http://
Just curious because I know you guys have this bias-media complex...what sources are not seen as biased?
Written By: DannyBoy
URL: http://
DannyBoy: I disagree with the "biased media" meme usually tossed about, in the sense that I do not believe there is a monolithic, conscious media bias at most news organizations. (of course, partisan advocacy publications are different)

I would suggest, though, that in a sense, *all* sources are biased. It's incorrect, though, to impugn the story because the source may have some bias. If a factually inaccurate, or incomplete, aspect can be found in the story, that may be *evidence* of bias, but bias is not evidence of factual failure.

For my part, I generally regard almost all major news publications as presumably accurate, but worthy of some degree of skepticism. In other words: trust, but verify.

But, without specific cause to disbelieve, I won't just accuse them of factual problems arising from bias. That's a cheap way out.
Written By: Jon Henke
The issue is no longer simply one of assigning blame for the disappearence of the explosives, the more important issue is that the Bush administration tried to cover it up.

It's simply outrageous. From the Nelson Report:

Despite pressure from DOD to
keep it quiet, the IAEA and the Iraqi Interim Government this month officially reported that 350-tons of dual-use, very high explosives were looted from a previously secure site in the early days of the US occupation in 2003. Administration officials privately admit this material is likely a primary source of the lethal car bomb attacks which cause so many US and Iraqi casualties. In the first presidential candidate debate, on foreign policy, Democratic nominee John Kerry charged that captured munitions and weapons were being turned against Coalition Forces, with US troops suffering 90% of the casualties. But the specifics of the losses from the Al Qa Qaa bunker and building complex, only now being reported, were apparently unknown outside of DOD and the US occupation authorities. The Bush Administration barred the IAEA from any participation in the Iraq invasion and occupation process, and blocked IAEA requests to help in the search for WMD and other dangerous materials. As part of the UN sanctions regime still in place when the US invaded, the IAEA had under seal 350 tons of RDX and HDX explosives, since singly, and in combination, these materials can be used in the triggering process for a nuclear weapon. However, the explosives were allowed to remain in Iraq due to their conventional use in construction, oil pipe lines, and the like. Since the explosives went missing last year, sources say DOD and other elements in the Administration sought to block the IAEA from officially reporting the problem, and also tried to stop the new Iraqi Interim Government from cooperating with the IAEA. But finally, on Oct. 10, the Iraqis formally notified the IAEA, and on Oct. 15, the IAEA formally notified the Bush Administration.

So what is Bush's response? From CNN:

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said President Bush wants to determine what went wrong.
McClellan, on Air Force One, stressed that the missing explosives were not nuclear materials, and said the storage site was the responsibility of the interim Iraqi government, not the United States, as of June 28, when the United States turned over the nation's administration to the Iraqis.

Bush knows what went wrong. They have known for months. Where is Bremer now? Why won't he talk? Bush is a lying, incompetent fool. It is insane that anyone is considering giving him four more years. We are truly on the other side of 1984 at this point.

Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Y'know, I don't entirely disagree with some of what you write here. But you--and a great deal of the Left--would have a lot more credibility if you hadn't been crying armageddon at every slight, real or perceived, since November, 2000.

When everything--no matter how big or small--gets the same "sky is falling" treatment, it's hard to take you seriously when something truly bad really does happen. As an objective commentator, you just don't have the credibility.

Has it occurred to you that you might do more good being objective and even-handed, rather than shrill?
Written By: Jon Henke
hilarious. Given the source and the timing of the story mr. Question and Observation swallows the story hook,line and sinker without a touch of skepticism. sad. this helps me to understand your vote for none of the above.
Written By: ron
URL: http://
Jon, I actually knew where you stood on media-bias as we talked about this before. I'm just asking the rest of the commentators because, if I'm not mistaken, the Wash. Post, NYT, Reuters, New Yorker? (guessing, since they are endorsing Kerry now). So I'm just curious as to who is regarded as a non-bias media source?
Written By: DannyBoy
URL: http://
Speaking only for myself, I'm not sure there is such a thing as a completely non-biased media source, at least in the sense that you know whatever you read in a particular story is 100% true. Much like intelligence analysts, journalists are not omniscient and usually don't have all the information necessary to write a completely accurate story.

In the case of this story, I'm not discounting it just because the NY Times broke the story, but as reported, it seems to me to be missing a few important facts. Doesn't mean I will ignore the story, but I will reserve judgement as to whether the US (and the Bush administration in particular) is to blame until more facts are revealed.


P.S. It's interesting to note that most critics just assume this massive stockpile of explosives was completely safe and sound while it was still in Saddam's hands. I'd bet a good chunk of my paycheck that at least some of this material has made its way into the hands of the PFLP, Hizbollah, etc. over the years ...
Written By: bob
URL: http://
This is on MSNBC:

At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

This is the first report I have seen that cites a source, though anonymous, confirming that the explosives were present when the Coalition forces arrived.
Is the Nelson Report available online?
Written By: JP Sobel
URL: http://
If this seals were gone (by the time USA foreces arrived), why would the explosives still have been there?

They would not have.

OBVIOUSLY: the stuff was pilfered AFTER the IAEA deserted their posts, and before the USA took control.

This is a definite period and a quantifiable amount of time.

Probably between the time that Bush declared Saddam had 48 hours to surrender, and when we took Baghdad.

But, the UN MUST know EXCATLY when the IAEA left their posts - they probably ordered them to leave, due to the looming threat of conflict.

SOMEONE out there in the blogosphere should be able to nail it down to a certainty.

Written By: daniel
URL: http://
This is on MSNBC:

At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

This is the first report I have seen that cites a source, though anonymous, confirming that the explosives were present when the Coalition forces arrived.
Is the Nelson Report available online?
Written By: JP Sobel
URL: http://
The 380 tons is bad enough.

But there's more evidence of incompetence. The WSJ reports today that we could have taken Zarqawi out before the war, but Bush chose not to.

As the toll of mayhem inspired by terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi mounts in Iraq, some former officials and military officers increasingly wonder whether the Bush administration made a mistake months before the start of the war by stopping the military from attacking his camp in the northeastern part of that country.

The Pentagon drew up detailed plans in June 2002, giving the administration a series of options for a military strike on the camp Mr. Zarqawi was running then in remote northeastern Iraq, according to generals who were involved directly in planning the attack and several former White House staffers. They said the camp, near the town of Khurmal, was known to contain Mr. Zarqawi and his supporters as well as al Qaeda fighters, all of whom had fled from Afghanistan. Intelligence indicated the camp was training recruits and making poisons for attacks against the West.

. . .

But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn't take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq. Ultimately, the camp was hit just after the invasion of Iraq began.

. . .

Administration officials say the attack was set aside for a variety of reasons, including uncertain intelligence reports on Mr. Zarqawi's whereabouts and the difficulties of hitting him within a large complex.

"Because there was never any real-time, actionable intelligence that placed Zarqawi at Khurmal, action taken against the facility would have been ineffective," said Jim Wilkinson, a spokesman for the NSC. "It was more effective to deal with the facility as part of the broader strategy, and in fact, the facility was destroyed early in the war." . . .

Some former officials said the intelligence on Mr. Zarqawi's whereabouts was sound. In addition, retired Gen. John M. Keane, the U.S. Army's vice chief of staff when the strike was considered, said that because the camp was isolated in the thinly populated, mountainous borderlands of northeastern Iraq, the risk of collateral damage was minimal. . . .

Gen. Keane characterized the camp "as one of the best targets we ever had," and questioned the decision not to attack it. . .

When a man is driving drunk down the wrong way of a one-way street, you pull him over and take him out of the car. If he responds, "You can't remove me until you have a credible alternative to drive the car," you tell him you'd rather take your chances.

Bush - Unfit for Command.
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://,2763,1335715,00.html

"IAEA inspectors pulled out of Iraq just before the 2003 invasion..."

THEREFORE, it is likely that the stuff was stolen between their desertion of their posts, and the time the USA took control.

A month - or more. Plenty of time for semi-trucks to do the job.

ALSO: INDC Journal is reprting that CNN's Pentagon reporter relates that this is the exact time-frame during which Pentagon officals believe the stuff was stolen.

SATELLITE photos MIGHT be able to prove this - IF they were trained on this site. But that is NOT LIKELY: Saddam has THOUSANDS of such sites ALL OVER IRAQ; the NSA could hardly ahve been watching them all, all the time.

YET ANOTHER reason it was PRUDENT IF NOT ESSENTIAL that we invade Iraq and tople Saddam.
Written By: daniel
URL: http://
mkultra said: "When a man is driving drunk down the wrong way of a one-way street, you pull him over and take him out of the car. If he responds, "You can't remove me until you have a credible alternative to drive the car," you tell him you'd rather take your chances."

So, let me make sure I've got this straight.

Before the war, all the world's intel services said Saddam had WMD. Bush took them at their word and invaded. Now the left screams "Bush Lied, People Died."

Also before the war, our intel said Zarqawi might be in this camp in Northern Iraq, but the intel was uncertain, so Bush held off on attacking it until after the war started.

Now you want to claim that Bush wasn't aggressive enough? When did you become such a blood-thirsty cowboy, mkultra?
Written By: bob
URL: http://
"The issue is no longer simply one of assigning blame for the disappearence of the explosives, the more important issue is that the Bush administration tried to cover it up. "

Yeah, it would have been such a good idea for Bush to announce to the world that a large explosives cache had gone missing and we didn't know where it was.

You think maybe he had a good reason not to advertise this fact to the enemy?
Written By: Ken
daniel, what about the quote by JP a few comments above?
Written By: DannyBoy
URL: http://
It is not that I am an aggressive cowboy. That is not the issue. The issue is Bush's disingeniousness. Time and again his administration has criticized Clinton for not taking out OBL. Now, after 9/11, when the shoe is on the other foot, they take no responsbility. More to the point, NBC has cited military officials who said the reason Bush didn't want to hit Zarqawi's camp was for fear it would take away a reason to invade Iraq.

As for keeping it a secret, how does not telling the enemy that we know what they have help us? Of course, they know that we know. Wouldn't it be better to alert the world to the fact that terrorists have certain weapons? Where is the national security issue there? Aint enough ame in lame for that excuse.

Unless the "enemy" is KE04. Which, given the mentality of the WH, is not far-fetched.
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
From NRO's "Kerry Spot":


Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News pretty much dismantled the New York Times attack on behalf of Kerry today.

NBC News: Miklaszewski: April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al Qakaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon. In a letter this month, the Iraqi interim government told the International Atomic Energy Agency the high explosives were lost to theft and looting due to lack of security. Critics claim there were simply not enough U.S. troops to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles, weapons now being used by insurgents and terrorists to wage a guerrilla war in Iraq. (NBCs Nightly News, 10/25/04)

What was that I said before about believeing the NYTimes at your peril?
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
ohhhhhhh jonnnnnnn, ohhhhhhh jonnnnnnn, I think you need to update your chicken littlesque post here. I can understand you wanting to sit on the sidelines for the upcoming pres. election. But falling for a story from the old donk times without corroboration or context. comeonnnnn:)
Written By: ron
URL: http://
Maybe instead of thinking of media bias as some sort of copout, you need to set it to your default option.

Haven't you seen enogh evidence this election cycle yet????
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
yep, the story is now officially bs.

Good try from the KE crowd and their MSM allies.
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
this certainly illuminates things

Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Sorry, guys, but I need more than that. It may well turn out to be false, but there are still too many open questions regarding this case. (as noted above) Did the soldiers check the entire complex? Did they check the surrounding area? Why did some officials concede that we didn't secure it?

I'm waiting for something more definitive.
Written By: Jon Henke
For crying out loud Jon, why is this particular barn more important than all the others?
Written By: Mark
URL: http://
sorry jon, you were suckered. if the timing of the explosive's disappearance occurs begfore the occupation then your questions and observations don't mean diddly. the least thing you should do is update your blogpost showing the origional story is being contested by nbc reporters. the fact that you are allowing yourself to be spun by jumping on the nyt's wagon does not reflect well upon you. it will be cold comfort to read your clarification after next tuesday when it has no impact. sort of like the nytime's "correction" concerning joseph wilson. useless.
Written By: ron
URL: http://
Guys, I'm following the story, and I plan to write a post on it when enough information comes in - and I have time. I don't think the most recent information is as dispositive as you guys seem to think.

And "this particular barn" is more important because of the nature of the munitions stored there. They are substantively different from machine guns and RPGs.
Written By: Jon Henke
Hey all,

NBC had a reporter with the troops and the stuff was gone when they arrived during the run north in Iraq. Unfortunately, as of now, only NBC and now CNN is reporting the truth.
Written By: Al Reasin
URL: http://
That reported indicated that they didn't actually search for it, and they didn't stay there long.

That's why I'm holding off before writing a big update on this.
Written By: Jon Henke
Jon, good on ya for holding off till all the facts come in but this story is blown apart already. I'm actully wanting more info on the Kerry/commie story out there. That looks to have real legs. Both stories are HUGE but Kerry/commie story is a ship sinker.
Written By: mark m
URL: http://
Yep, Jon, you are right to wait and see.

At least you are honest and have integrity. That is why I read your blog instead of the media matters shills like Oliver and Atrios.
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
But, on the other hand, it is certainly interesting that the leak on explosives is attributed to El-Baradei and he has submitted his application for renewal as chief of IAEA and he is prominently quting this story as proof of the US perfidy.

Written By: capt joe
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks