Friday, October 29, 2004

"Missing explosives" should be ammo for Bush

Andrew Sullivan points to a smoking gun proving that the US flubbed in its efforts to secure the explosives at al QaQaa.

Meanwhile, Charles Johnson points to a Fox News report of a soldier saying the US secured the weapons.

It’s hard to tell what went on at al QaQaa. Either way, though, this story could, and should, be read as a success for the Bush administration. We have taken down a country led by a genocidal madmen in possession of “650,000 to 1 million tons of explosives, artillery shells, aviation bombs and other ammunition” and who, contra to leftist talking points, “provided money, diplomatic services, shelter, medical care, and training to terrorists of every stripe, including those complicit in the 1993 WTC bombing and — according to a Clinton-appointed federal judge — the September 11 attacks.”

Judging by this pattern of behavior, coupled with Saddam's irrantional behavior (plotting to assassinate a former US president? invading Kuwait? invading Iran? Bueller?) and desire to attack America, it previously wasn’t out of the question to assume that Saddam would pass explosives on to one of the terror groups he supported. Now it is.

As I said earlier, it’s not clear if the .06% of Iraqi munitions in question have gone missing, and the extent to which the US may have been at fault if they have fallen into the wrong hands. I would tend to think that the weapons were secured, taken by Russia before the war, or moved by Saddam before the war, because we haven’t seen this type of explosive turn up in the hands of the insurgency (which, if it had been looted, it almost certainly would have), as well as for a gaggle of other reasons.

Either way, it shines a spotlight on the arms dump that was pre-invasion Iraq, as well as the relatively okay ( relatively okay—now that’s a ringing endorsement -ed.) job we have done in securing the most dangerous munitions despite the size of the country, amount of munitions, and security concerns.

Lastly, OT a bit, but credit where credit is due. I wholeheartedly endorse this comment from Bill at INDC Journal:

The WaPo's riled me up with bias before and undoubtedly will again (start the stopwatch), but almost consistently, all election season long, they've shown up with their gameface on certain key issues. The massive exception to this statement is anything written by overt hack Dana Milbank and many of the jaundiced, canned Iraq narratives by Rajiv Chandrasekaran.

Michael Dobbs, Howard Kurtz and Thomas E. Ricks have been relative stars among the media elite, however. Credit where credit's due.


Post a Comment

<< Home