What David Kay said (Scroll down a bit to find Kay’s interview).
8.
None
Proove that these 17, yes count their seventeeness. Roll around in it, say “seventeen” at least 17 times. Yes these seventeen claims about batboy in the Weekly World News are credible because there are seventeen of them!
Fox News is more credible than the NY Post. The NY Post reported that Gehphardt would be the Democratic VP nominee!
If the NY Post reported that the sky was blue I’d take a look.
If Fox reported the sky was blue I’d wonder why.
9.
pleasewakeupy'all
***So, the response to what objective observers agree is conclusive proof is to cover one’s ears and refuse to listen to the truth?***
Hmmm, sums up the whole liberal media myth strategy quite nicely.
10.
Mikey
I guess no one can apply reason and common sense to experience. Does anyone seriously think that a large scale movement of nearly four hundred tons of explosives was moved from underneath the noses of the US Army and Air Force? While those military organizations were active in that area?
Let me ask a better question – would you be willing to be part of such a movement of high explosives under US air supremacy and through US army units?
If you do, can I have your tv?
11.
CadillaqJaq
It’s becoming more obvious to me as the hours and days pass… Halliburton sneaked into al QaQaa, right under the noses of the entire U.S. military, and spirited those deadly explosives out of the installation. Probably with the intent to use them against the U.S. one day when they decide to take over and rule the entire planet. Then there will be no more discussion about those nasty no-bid contracts ever again.
BUT, regardless what ABC’s video film might lead some to believe, I’m on the side of our military personnel and their version of the story. Logic forces one to consider that much of Saddam’s weaponry of all types was moved in the final weeks leading up to the invasion. To believe that Saddam would have left the al QaQaa installation up for grabs defys any type of twisted logic.
What ABC says or thinks doesn’t necessarily make it so.
-Felix
“A videotape made by a television crew with American troops when they opened bunkers at a sprawling Iraqi munitions complex south of Baghdad shows a huge supply of explosives still there nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein, apparently including some sealed earlier by the International Atomic Energy Agency”.
Using the most generous interpretation, there’s not anywhere near 380 tons of explosives shown in any of the KSTP film/photographs, nor in all of them put together.
That he would uncritically post a link to (and recommend) such a partisan
16.
Lunch
If this invasion truly was about concerns of terrorinsm and not the more nefarious motivates that actually seem more likely; then concluding that planning for this invasion and it’s aftermath was inept is not solely based on this event.
Any argument that this administration did not negligently turn over to our enemies 760,000 lbs. of high explosives requires an underlying assumption of competence within the civilian leadership; something that has never been demonstrated.
17.
pleasewakeupy'all
In a quiet moment, do you ever reflect on the record of this administration with regard to judgement, integrity, and competence, despite your ideological agreement, think–“these guys are embarassing, we have to go another direction?”
Of course you do.
18.
willyb
“That he would uncritically post a link to (and recommend) such a partisan
19.
Bill Nye the (Poiltical) Science Guy
OK Willy, since you are apperantly getting your news from John and/or Fox, I’ll tell you.
The truth is that this administration went to war (which was in and of itself a huge mistake, but I’ll set that aside for the moment) without proper planning and without enough troops. The evidence for both of these monumental blunders is overwhelming, and if you doubt my word there are plenty of Republicans (including Hawks) from former administrations who have arrived at the very same conclusions.
The issue which is being discussed on this thread is just one, albeit a very important example of how the lack of both planning and failure to provide enough troops has hurt badly. The troops which first came upon sensitive sites were not instructed to secure those sites, in spite of the fact that the IAEA had warned the U.S. to do so. Instead, they were ordered to roll on to Baghdad. That is a result of either unbelievably poor planning and/or a lack of necessary manpower. there is no other possible explanation.
There are too many other examples to list, but again, these two fundamental mistakes are clear to anyone who is not involved in this administration’s desperate scramble for another term.
If you are wondering why such basic
20.
Bill Nye the (Poiltical) Science Guy
Here’s a timely follow-up from a Knight-Ridder newswire article written today. It speaks to both the main issue of this thread and the larger issue which I mention above:
In a new disclosure, the senior U.S. military officer and another U.S. official, who also spoke on condition he not be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, said that an Iraqi working for U.S. intelligence alerted U.S. troops stationed near the al Qaqaa weapons facility that the installation was being looted shortly after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003.
But, they said, the troops took no apparent action to halt the pillaging.
“That was one of numerous times when Iraqis warned us that ammo dumps and other places were being looted and we weren’t able to respond because we didn’t have anyone to send,” said a senior U.S. military officer who served in Iraq.
21.
Geek, Esq.
You forgot the best part, Bill–the part where it was revealed the Rumsfeld let Chalabi determine that al QaQaa was not a high priority.
22.
syn
I thought these weapons never existed? The same people saying that Bush is an imperialist warmonger because Saddam didn’t have weapons are now saying that Bush is negligent because he allowed looting of weapons that apparently never existed.
I am voting for Bush because it’s insane to believe the crazy people.
Syn: have you got a link for the proposition that anyone ever suggested that Iraq did not have conventional explosives?
The WMD were universally understood to include only nuclear, biological, and cehmical weapons.
For anyone to suggest that the exstence of conventional explosives in Iraq was at issue in the decission to go to war is just intellectually dishonest.
After all, the weapons we are talking about were located, inventoried, and sealed by the IEAE prior to the war. Does suugests that their existence was widely known.
Your better talking point is that the administraton did not let the insurgents get their hands on all of the weapons and explosives in Iraq. And for that, I suppose, they deserve appropriate credit. The failure to completely screw up should always be noted.
“Any argument that this administration did not negligently turn over to our enemies 760,000 lbs. of high explosives requires an underlying assumption of competence within the civilian leadership; something that has never been demonstrated.”
What the Hell are you talking about? These explosives were in the hands of our enemies for years. The worst that can be said is that we failed to take this one batch of explosives away from our enemies.
Yes, Saddam Hussein was our enemy. We were at war with him. He was shooting at our planes for years, planes that had every right to be there according to a cease-fire agreement that he signed. And I don’t really give a shit how much cooperation he did or did not give to al-Queda or similar organizations – if al-Queda could cross the line, jump the ocean, and stage attacks in the United States, why not some of the other fun collection of whackjobs that openly declare themselves the sworn enemies of the United States, a collection that most certainly included Saddam Hussein?
(Not to mention that he was in the way of us forcibly preventing Iran from building nukes, an operation that will most likely need to begin fairly soon.)
Now also, if we assume for the moment that the stuff was taken in the early days of the invasion because of a shortage of troops, it would be a good idea to remember why there was a shortage of troops in the early days of the invasion. It wasn’t the “hopeless incompetence” of the Bush administration – it was the lack of cooperation on the part of Turkey that forced half the troops committed to the operation to take the long way around and prevented them from showing up when they were supposed to. And no, Kerry going to Turkey and saying “pretty please with a cherry on top” wouldn’t have produced better results.
The only reason the IEAE sealed them was because much of it was also classified as detonator material for neuclear weapons. If it was construction dynamyte and cord they would have left it as it wouldn’t have been banned.
26.
willyb
Bill Nye:
I thought you were talking about the truth of the explosives issue??? Were the explosives at al Qaqaa after the start of the war or were they moved prior to that time? If they were there at the time the war began, were they subsequently destroyed by the American military or looted by insurgents?
I heard that the video shot by ABC was at GPS coordinates that were 3 miles south of al Qaqaa. I also heard that the American military moved approximately 250 tons from al Qaqaa sometime around April 13, 2003. What about the aerial photos that show a number of trucks at al Qaqaa sometine in March 2003?
I would say that we need additional facts before we can conclude that the truth was reported by the NYT earlier this week. Based on what I know, the New York Posts’ version of the truth is just as “truthful” as the NYT’s. Wouldn’t you agree?
27.
Bill Nye the (Poiltical) Science Gu
Willy-
I appreciate your reasonable tone. As to your questions…
I thought that it was important to point out the broader “truths”, in large part because they are directly related to what went wrong in this specific (explosives) case.
At the same time, I did lay out an accurate, up-to-date set of facts and pertinent quotes. And while I don’t claim that ALL of the facts have been produced, enough is known to confidently establish the following:
a. The explosives WERE there after the war began
28.
Steve Malynn
Bill, there is a reason that most military types agree with Col. Peters: we understand the difference between explosives that are in unprocessed form (barrells of white powder) and those with fuses attached (artillery shells and bombs). During the conduct of the fighting, 250 tons of the latter, immediately dangerous, munitions were secured from al QaQaa and destroyed.
It is not known what happened to the raw, unprocessed powder HMX, and the bulk of the RMX that had been dispursed after the Jan 03 “sealing”. Which points out the fallicy of relying on the wire “seals”. Until rechecking in March 03 the IAEA did not know Saddam had moved 138 tons of the RMX (and the IAEA misreported to the NYTimes) – the seals did not stop Saddam from doing what he pleased with the explosives. The IAEA did not look behind their wires to see if the HMX was actually there. In the infantry we know that an obstacle is only effective if it is being observed. To date there has been no report of a bomb made from the missing HMX/RMX.
Bill, its goofy to imply that a mission cannot be attempted if 100% perfection is not accomplished. Saddam had possession of between 600,000 and 1 Million tons of conventional and banned explosives (long range missles, WMDs, and dual use nuke precursors). Priority of detection was likely for WMDs and banned munitions, munitions that posed immediate danger, and only then raw material. The HMX used as a conventional explosive has less utility than the sea of munitions Iraq was awash in: remember most schoolhouses filled with RPGs, grenades and small arms. Not to mention rockets and artillery shells in Mosques.
The higher explosive rating of the raw HMX, compared to a rocket warhead, is a function of the powder not yet being mixed with binder and filler, as is necessary to make it a plastic, useable, explosive.
29.
Bill Nye the (Poiltical) Science Guy
Steve-
I don’t understand your reference to the “fallacy” of relying on the seals. The seals were obviously never designed (nor meant) to prevent someone from removing material; they were in place to signal whether or not the bunker in question had been breached. The IAEA did not have to “look behind” the wires to see if the HMX was there; If the wires (seals) were intact, then it must have been there.
Your point that “there has been no report of a bomb made from the missing HMX/RMX” may be well intended, but it carries no weight. Do you seriously believe that if this administration knew of such evidence, they would report it? Given their record, that notion would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.
No one, including myself, would suggest that 100% perfection is expected, let alone required. But your regurgitation of the administration’s talking point on the total relative amount of weapons in Iraq is hardly compelling. The IAEA sealed and warned the U.S. about the need to secure those particular weapons for a reason: they are particularly dangerous. It may well be easier for an unsophisticated insurgent to use an RPG and the like, but it is naive to think that the HMX could not, or should I say, has not fallen into the hands of terrorists who have the capability of putting it to full use.
One of the principal rationales for going to war with Iraq in the first place was because of the threat of WMD’s. And while that rationale has been exposed for what it was (empty), how can you possibly rationalize the U.S. FAILING to secure material that is an important part of that potential threat? The sad truth is that we (not just our soldiers) were MORE safe when those materials were under IAEA watch and seal, and we knew who was responsible (Saddam) if they were tampered with.
Finally, I expect that your vote will help Kerry win Ohio, not only because you seem thoughtful and open-minded, but because you probably have a soft-spot for litigators!
That makes a Hell of a lot more sense than saying it was Bush’s fault. The number of troops on hand in the early days of the operation and available to do things like babysit munitions dumps was not determined by Bush’s plan, but by Turkey’s noncooperation.
“Your point that “there has been no report of a bomb made from the missing HMX/RMX” may be well intended, but it carries no weight. Do you seriously believe that if this administration knew of such evidence, they would report it? Given their record, that notion would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.”
You mean their record of not broadcasting to the whole world every problem on our side? That strikes me as quite sensible.
31.
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
“The number of troops on hand in the early days of the operation…was not determined by Bush’s plan, but by Turkey’s noncooperation.”
Come on, Ken, you’re kidding, right? Not determined by our own war plan? Even those who are politically aligned with you would choke on that one. It is well documented that the military planners in the Pentagon recommended (or should I say urged) that we send many, many more troops in order to secure Iraq. Rumsfeld and his civilian cohorts overruled them, humiliated General Shinseki for publicly stating that we would need minimum of 350,000 troops, and, of course, (Rumsfeld, et al) turned out to be dead wrong (pun intended).
“…broadcasting to the whole world every problem on our side?”
Given that this is, by any objective measure, the most secretive administration in history, it would be refreshing if they were to broadcast ONE thing that wasn’t politically advantageous. More to the point, the looting of these munitions dumps was no secret in Iraq, and it’s hard to see how admitting an already well-known mistake would greatly increase any risk.
As an aside, when Bush loses on Tuesday, his (and his administration’s) unwillingness to admit ANY mistakes will have played a significant role in his downfall.
32.
willyb
Bill Nye:
I still don’t see where there is proof of the explosives being in sealed bunkers at the time the war began. Just saying they were there, no question about it, does not make it so. What is the basis of your conclusion.
Regarding the sealed bunkers, it is my understanding that there were ventilation shafts that would have allowed access without breaking the IAEA seals. What about the large number of trucks visible on satellite photos taken in March 2003, before the war began?
33.
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
Willy,
From yesterday’s NY Times:
“The photographs are consistent with what I know of Al Qaqaa,” said David A. Kay, a former American official who led the recent hunt in Iraq for unconventional weapons and visited the vast site. “The damning thing is the seals. The Iraqis didn’t use seals on anything. So I’m absolutely sure that’s an I.A.E.A. seal.”
One weapons expert said the videotape and some of the agency’s photographs of the HMX stockpiles “were such good matches it looked like they were taken by the same camera on the same day.”
Independent experts said several other factors – the geography; the number of bunkers; the seals on some of the bunker doors; the boxes, crates and barrels similar to those seen by weapon inspectors – confirm that the videotape was taken at Al Qaqaa.
“There’s not another place that you would mistake it for,” said Dean Staley, the KSTP reporter, who now works in Seattle.
The accidental news encounter began last year after the invasion, Mr. Staley recalled in an interview. Their Army unit arrived in the region on Friday, April 11, and made camp. The Fifth Battalion of the 101st Airborne’s 159th Aviation Brigade flew helicopter missions from the camp in the Iraqi desert, moving troops and supplies to the front.
A week later, on Friday, April 18, two journalists recalled, they joined two soldiers who were driving in a Humvee to investigate the nearby bunkers. Among other things, wandering inside the cavernous buildings offered the prospect of relief from the desert sun.
“It was just by chance that we were able to go,” said Joe Caffrey, the team’s photographer. “They wanted to go out and we asked to tag along.”
They visited a half dozen bunkers, he said. The gloomy interiors revealed long rows of boxes, crates and barrels, what independent experts said were three kinds of HMX containers shipped to Iraq from France, China and Yugoslavia.
The team opened storage containers, some of which contained white powder that independent experts said was consistent with HMX.
“The soldiers were pretty much in awe of what they were seeing,” Mr. Caffrey recalled. “They were saying their E.O.D. – Explosive Ordinance Division, people who blow this kind of stuff up – would have a field day.”
The journalists filmed roughly 25 minutes of video. Mr. Caffrey added that the team left the bunker doors open. “It would have been easy for anybody to get in,” he said.
Mr. Staley recalled that during the drive back to camp, they saw a red Toyota pickup truck with some Iraqis in it. “Our impression was they were looters,” he said. “This was a no man’s land. It was a huge facility, and we worried that they were bad guys who might come up on us.”
The two journalists filed a short story, which ran soon thereafter in Minneapolis-St. Paul.
In the interview, Mr. Caffrey said he had carefully rechecked the date on the cassette for his camera, adding that he was sure it was April 18, 2003.
What more proof do you need, Willy?
34.
Bloggerhead
As a preliminary matter, props to Bill for bringing us all up to speed re: Al Qaqaa. John, your link to Ralph’s conflicted (and conflicting) reasons that the truth can’t be what it appears to was, what, 18 hours behind the state of play–I mean, soooo October 28th–what with the release on Thursday of that embedded video showing explosives under IAEA seal in the 3ID’s possession.
Steve, I’m not going to pretend to be able to rebut your perspective regarding military matters. From your comments here and elsewhere, you’ve shown yourself to be expert and reasonable, if occasionally tendentious: but who isn’t around here? Still, there are two general points you’ve raised that I’d like to address.
First, you point out (in congress with administration excuse no. 2, that these missing explosives are inconsequential in a nation awash in munitions) that Iraq had 600,000 to a million tons of munitions. We’ve all heard the administration trumpet the fact that we’ve disposed with 400,000 tons of various types. But assuming an average of your figures above, that means we’ve done no more than half the job, and we’ve controlled most of the country for 18 months. Surely, with a better post-war plan, more troops and more of a coalition (no blame for which can fall on the military), a better outcome was possible.
Second, no one can dispute that the military was forced into the position of having to prioritize its targets, with taking out the regime and finding evidence of WMD (and protecting the oil ministry, presumably) among the first-tier objectives. But it would appear that the need to prioritize is inversely proportional to the number of troops and the efficacy of the post-occupation plan. Therefore, it is the president’s conception, and not the military’s conduct of the war that is put at issue by Al Qaqaa. Particularly noteworthy in this regard is the conduct of the administration’s pre-war pupput, Chalabi, who in persuading the administration that Al Qaqaa was not a high priority, despite the IAEA’s clearly deeming it as such, has shown himself again to have been the one pulling the strings.
I can’t be the only one who’s sick and tired of the fools that this adminsitration has been made out to be by the likes of Chalabi (and many neo-cons, for that matter). And now we’ve got bin Laden talking smack, motherfucker, when we were led to believe that, if alive, he was hooked to an iron lung, or something, at death’s door, in some cave surrounded by Pakistani forces. It kind of reminds me of the administration’s shock-and-awe period, when we were told that we had special forces all over Iraq and were, in fact, in contact with many Iraqi military commanders. Still, the insurgency turned out to be such a big surprise. As Osama’s video demonstrates, talk is cheap; unfortunately, it can wind up getting so many people killed.
Oh, and Willy, the satellite pictures of Iraqi trucks at Al Qaqaa in March are pretty much a dead letter regarding the missing explosives, since the trucks were not parked outside the bunkers that contained them.
35.
willyb
Bill Nye:
No offense intended, but I do not believe much of anything in the NYT. I used to read it and try to reconcile their version of the truth to actual documents and always found a definite spin to their “reporting.” TAn example would be the way they spun the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing back when they were trying to make the case that Bush was warned about 9/11 before it happened. So, if your proof relies on anything reported in the NYT, I say it’s no proof to me. You know, fool me once, shame on you… I am even more sensitive to this issue after the Dan Rather memogate incident.
Bloggerhead:
Based on the DOD press briefing with Major Pearson, not all of the aerial photos have been released. The photo that has been released indicated a fair amount of activity at the al Qaqaa complex in the month preceding the start of the war. The spokesman for DOD indicated there were many more photos, and that they were still analyzing them. How can you be so sure that the explosives in question were not removed by Saddam’s thugs?
36.
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
Willy,
Healthy skepticism of the mainstream media is one thing, but you’re bordering on paranoia!
The section that I quoted above from The Times includes quotes from David Kay, this administration’s most recent (before it’s current) chief weapons inspector in Iraq. If you don’t believe what he’s saying, then who, exactly, do you believe? The reporters who covered the site from Minneapolis are local ABC reporters. Are you suspicious of them as well?
Perhaps you would feel more comfortable listening to a professor from the U.S. Naval War College.
Thanks to a link provided by Josh Marshall, here’s an article written by just such a person in USA Today just over one year ago:
What happened to looted Iraqi nuclear material?
By Brett Wagner
The release Thursday of chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay’s report detailing America’s six-month search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has reinflamed the debate over whether anyone will ever uncover that country’s alleged stockpiles of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.
A great irony, however, seems to have gotten lost in that debate: As a direct result of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq without sufficient forces to secure and protect its nuclear research and storage facilities from rampant looting, enough radioactive material to build scores of dirty bombs now is missing and may be on its way to the international black market.
It didn’t have to turn out this way. In the weeks before the invasion, the U.S. military repeatedly warned the White House that its war plans did not include sufficient ground forces, air and naval operations and logistical support to guarantee a successful mission. Those warnings were discounted
37.
willyb
Bill Nye:
Don’t you find it somewhat strange to take the words of one, or a handful, of so-called military experts when it is clear that others have come down with advice that is to the contrary? Do you really believe that the consensus of the administration’s joint chiefs of staff was not to proceed as the administration did?
Perhaps it would have been better not to address the scary issues raised by professor at the U.S. Naval War College, i.e., leave Saddam alone and let the weapons inspectors do their inspections. I mean, after all, the U.N. is such an effective organization (LOL). The explosives in question were apparently an issue after the first Gulf war. If they were such an eminent danger, why did the U.N. allow them to exist for 12+ years.? The following is from the 10/27/2004 WSJ (page A27):
“In the late 1980s, Saddam Hussein’s regime purchased large stocks of the explosives HMX, RDX and PETN from suppliers in China, Yugoslavia and — deep breath now — France. Ostensibly, these explosives have their civilian applications, such as mining and demolition. But because they are both chemically stable (they only detonate when properly fused) and highly explosive, they also have extensive military uses. They are common in conventional military ordnance, such as mines and artillery shells. They are uniquely well-suited for terrorist attacks; less than a pound of these explosives brought down Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. And they can be used as triggers to set off a nuclear chain reaction.
Following the first Gulf War, the International Atomic Energy Agency put the Qaqaa cache under seal, where it remained until U.N. inspectors were kicked out in 1998. Upon the inspectors’ return in late 2002, some 35 tons of HMX were found to be missing; the Iraqis claimed some of it had been removed for civilian use.”
How do you know that any future problems we may face with respect to these explosives won’t be caused by the 35 TONS that were missing when the inspectors returned in 2002? Frankly, the effectiveness of the U.N. has been pathetic, or worse. If the IAEA had destroyed the explosives in question in the mid-1990s, as was requested by the U.S., this whole issue would be moot. And a good argument can be made that the U.N.’s piss poor mismanagement of the Oil for Food Program thwarted the U.N. sanctions and kept Saddam in power. All at the expense of the Iraqi people. Not to mention the huge issues raised by the blantant fraud being committed by several Security Council members (the same ones that voted against the use of force in Iraq) in connection with this U.N. adminstered fiasco.
Do you really believe the threats posed by these weapons falling into the hands of terrorists would have been lessened by the inspection approach? This is the kind of attitude that got us in the situation we found ourselves in during Mr. Clinton’s terms in office… use international bureaucrats and the American legal system to pursue terrorism. Clearly nothing done by Mr. Clinton had the effect of dissuading the vermin that perpetrated 9/11. And using the same rationale being used today to blame Bush for the execution of war plans, would have tarred and feathered Mr. Clinton during his terms in office. Look at the U.S.S. Cole. How could any CIC have let this happen. Look at Somalia. How could any CIC have let us end up in the tactical situation we found ourselves in Somalia? Why didn’t Clinton respond then?
My point of bringing up Clinton is not to change the subject, it is the subject. NO CIC can handle every aspect of his administration. He must rely on other people to handle the details, including planning details. This whole issue, which involves some suspicious timing of U.N. documents, seems to be blown out of proportion. The point is we should locate these explosives if they are out there, not locate blame for them being out there. There is enough blame to go around on this issue.
38.
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
Willy,
I think that we’re beginning to splinter into too many different directions now, though admittedly they are related.
The reason that I pointed to the USA Today article is that it underscores the fact that we did not have enough troops to secure Iraq after we had invaded. That is the main theme of this whole thread, and the most recent (Al Qaqaa) example is, unfortunately, just one of many. I don’t want to argue this point any further, as it seems painfully clear to me that the fact is very well-established.
As to your first question above, my understanding is that there was no such division amongst the Joint Chiefs. This was, in essence, a fight between the military establishment and the civilian wing of the Pentagon. General Shinseki was notable for his candor in public, but the reports (some of them ‘insider’) that I have read all suggest that the other principal military planners agreed that we needed far more troops than the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz plan (experiment) called for.
Here are the first couple of paragraphs from an article which appeared in the New Yorker in April of 2003. This was, of course, well before we knew of the full extent of the problems relating to lack of troops on the ground.
As the ground campaign against Saddam Hussein faltered last week, with attenuated supply lines and a lack of immediate reinforcements, there was anger in the Pentagon. Several senior war planners complained to me in interviews that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his inner circle of civilian advisers, who had been chiefyl responsible for persuading President Bush to lead the country into war, had insisted on micromanaging the war
39.
Steve Malynn
Ken, at Chicagoboyz.net answers you well Bill:
“Now we are told that Bush should be turned out of office because his “incompetence” caused us to lose (maybe) a couple of hundred tons of explosives from a warehouse in Iraq. Now keep in mind that these aren’t the dreaded WMD (which didn’t exist, remember?), and these aren’t plain old regular explosives, either (or else this wouldn’t be such a big deal), but a nifty new category of munition, not powerful enough to justify an invasion but just powerful enough for their disappearance to justify Bush’s ouster.”
40.
Steve Malynn
The conclusion of the article on Chicagoboyz.net:
“Now the one thing that strikes me about the military efforts to date is just how incredibly successful they’ve been, and how masterfully planned and executed they turned out to be. Not perfect, of course (You mean there’s terrorists setting off explosives? Against Americans and their supporters? In the Middle East, no less? Say it isn’t so!). But a lot of the toys that John Kerry voted against turned out to be damned useful in the War on Terror. I don’t want to even think about how an Afghanistan operation with Vietnam-era technology and tactics would have gone for us – I think in that case we’d have been wishing for another Vietnam. And if you’ve ever cracked a history book, you’ll realize that only 1200 deaths in a year and a half of invading a dictatorship, overthrowing its dictator, and fighting a chronic insurgency is astoundingly good news, especially when added to the fact that the long-predicted flood of refugees never materialized, the terrorists that Saddam’s regime had nothing whatsoever to do with suddenly got extremely interested in the fate of Iraq (and no, we’re not turning peaceful, simple folk into bloodthirsty terrorists – at worst, we’re forcing them to choose their side a little sooner than they would have on their own, and denying them the option of biding their time until the Great Satan looks sufficiently weak to try their hand at terrorism on their chosen terms), and Iraqis are still signing up to take on the battle for their country against these thugs and getting set to vote in their first-ever real election in a couple of months.
And the Commander-in-Chief at the helm during these amazing accomplishments is called incompetent? You’ve got to be kidding me.
Posted by ken on October 29, 2004 11:38 PM”
41.
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
Steve,
Do those quotes really mirror your thoughts? If so, then I’m very disappointed.
This administration’s (not solely Bush’s) incompetence has been revealed in numerous instances; the clear failure to send enough troops and plan properly for the post-war security of Iraq is just one example.
The other issue raised in the first paragragh is a red herring. Any serious observor recognizes that:
a. Iraq had no WMD’s (i.e. chemical, biological or nuclear) when we invaded.
b. The high explosives such as HMX are potentially very dangerous in the hands of terrorists, should have remained secured, but clearly do not fall into the WMD category.
c. No one has created “new category of munition”. These categories are (and have been) clearly defined all along.
With respect to the longer quote, I doubt that you and I can have a meaningful dialogue if you believe that the war in Iraq has been “masterfully planned and executed”.
With the exception of those in the administration who are clinging desperately to power, I don’t know of any serious observer who would agree with that statement. And that includes a long, long list of people in important positions who have no axe to grind (John McCain admitted, just a few minutes ago, that many mistakes had been made, etc.).
Ken also reveals one of the most insidious problems resulting from this administration’s refusal to be honest with the American people (and the world) about the war and it’s consequences. I don’t have to crack a single history book to recognize the myopic and xenophobic nature of talking about “only 1,200 deaths”. What about the 20-30,000 civilian deaths which have resulted (thus far) from the “liberation” of Iraq?
Finally, the notion that the people who are fighting against the U.S. and terrorizing both the troops and civilians would otherwise have been “biding their time until the Great Satan looks sufficiently weak to try their hand at terrorism on their chosen terms” reveals a grotesque and frankly racist perspective on Ken’s part.
I do hope that you cut and pasted that garbage because you were in a hurry, and hadn’t taken the time to digest it fully.
42.
willyb
Bill Nye:
What does it say to you when seemingly competent people disagree on the appropriate course of action? To me it says there is probably more than one way to “skin the cat.” I have no idea what really went on in these planning meetings. Whether the source you are quoting said or did not say what he/she is saying now. I do know the U.S. military embarked on a mission that was agreed to on the front-end, that plans change as events unfold (especially in combat), and that it is easy to play Monday morning quarterback.
“As to your question about the 35 tons which went missing under the U.N.’s watch, that is completely irrelevant to the issue that we have been discussing. I have not been mounting a defense of the U.N.’s record, but pointing out the U.S. failures in this war.”
If you think about the thrust of the argument that Bush failed to plan, and as a result, explosives have fallen into the hands of people wanting to do us harm, i.e., the terrorists. And if you couple this argument with a belief that it was a “huge mistake” to invade Iraq. Then you are left with the pre-war status quo of the U.N. in charge of Iraq
Well, well, well, a distortion piece from a slanted Murdoch rag. Lousy source, lousy piece of work.
“Now, just before Election Day, the IAEA . . . suddenly realizes that 400 tons of phantom explosives went missing from the dump.”
Untrue. The IAEA has known the stuff was gone since 2003. The agency made requests for info about it, an investigation of sorts, to the CPA in Iraq, then started asking the Bush administration last summer. The agency’s thinking was that it was giving CPA and U.S. authorities time to figure out what happened and track down or account for the ordnance.
When that didn’t happen and when it was clear the N.Y. Times was going public with a story on it, the IAEA went public with it.
There was no “suddenly” about any of it.
44.
willyb
The U.N.’s Revenge; WSJ; October 29, 2004; Page A14
” The United Nations appears to have cast its vote in the U.S. Presidential election this week, and it wasn’t exactly a secret ballot. It used 377 tons of high-grade Iraqi explosives to announce its opposition to re-electing George W. Bush.
At least we think that’s a fair suspicion from the oh-so-convenient timing of the story of the explosives missing from the Qaqaa munitions depot outside Baghdad. The story itself ought to be of minor import and has many oddities about it, but none more curious than the chronology of how it came to dominate the last week of this election.
On October 10, a letter from the Iraqi Ministry of Science & Technology arrived at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Vienna headquarters. The letter included a list of “high explosive materials” that “were lost” after April 9, 2003, through “the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security.” This is the ministry that worked with the IAEA before the war and it’s headed by a man who used to work for Saddam Hussein.
The Iraqi ministry was responding, in what appears to be record time, to a U.N. request. IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei attaches the Iraqi letter to his own October 25 letter to the U.N. Security Council, saying he had received it “consequent to [a] reminder” the IAEA had sent on October 1. Somehow, information that was known for many months suddenly required urgent communication to New York.
Another perplexity is the Iraqi ministry’s flat-out statement that it knew the explosives were present before April 9, 2003, the day prior to the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division’s arrival at al Qaqaa. A far more logical explanation is that Saddam removed the material before the war began. Buford Blount, who commanded the 3rd ID at the time, said yesterday that “Saddam for several months before we attacked moved most of his ammunition and explosives. … And he moved tons and tons of ammunition and distributed it throughout the cities and throughout the desert. I don’t think anyone at this point can say whether there was anything there of that magnitude.” The U.S. also has satellite photos, from March 17, 2003, showing heavy equipment working around al Qaqaa.
Such removal would not have been hard to accomplish, as an IAEA inspection report of January 14, 2003, makes only too clear: “Of note was that the sealing on the bunkers was only partially effective because each bunker had ventilation shafts on the sides of the buildings. These shafts were not sealed, and could provide removal routes for [the] HMX while leaving the front door locked.”
As for “looting,” it’s hard to see how that could have taken place without the notice of coalition forces. The Pentagon says it would have taken roughly 38 truckloads to move 380 tons of explosives — all while U.S. vehicles filled the Iraqi roadways at that time.
The IAEA informed the U.S. about the missing stockpile on October 15, noting that it was “likely to leak.” In his October 25 letter to the Security Council, Mr. ElBaradei dryly noted “the matter has been given media coverage today.” That was the day the story was first reported by the New York Times and CBS News. Mission accomplished?
Meanwhile, the Kerry campaign continues to hammer President Bush over the missing explosives, as if this is anything more than a minor mystery in the broader debate over who can best secure victory in Iraq. To put the missing 377 tons in further context: The recent Duelfer report says that the U.S. has found 405,944 tons of munitions in Iraq, of which 243,045 tons have already been destroyed.
There’s one last date worth noting: September 10. That’s the day Mr. ElBaradei announced that he would seek a third term as IAEA head. The Bush Administration believes heads of U.N. agencies should serve a maximum of two terms. It told Mr. ElBaradei when it supported him for a second term in 2001 that it would not support him for a third. A Kerry Administration might take a different view, especially after this week. “
45.
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
Willy,
I give you credit for being (irritatingly) persistent. The substance of your argument still falls short, however.
Is there more than one way to “skin the cat”? Sure. But the cliche is rendered meaningless when you take into account that ALL SERIOUS OBSERVERS AGREE that we used too few troops. So the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz approach was WRONG, and they were clearly warned by the top military experts of their impending mistake. What part of that don’t you understand?
Given that the sanctions and UN inspections were obviously working (i.e. NO WMD’s, no reconstituted nuclear program), how do you arrive at the conclusion that the UN was “ineffective”?
Saddam posed NO direct threat to the U.S., and had NO record of attempting to supply Al-Qaeda type terrorists with weapons. If you can’t distinguish between tyrants such as Saddam and the terrorist networks which threaten us, you need to do some further research.
As to the (predictably) slanted WSJ article, which is devoid of anything meaningful to advance the story: Give me a break! I might as well listen to Scott McClellan scramble to throw the press off the scent.
I’m going to re-post a part of a Knight-Ridder article from the other day:
In a new disclosure, the senior U.S. military officer and another U.S. official, who also spoke on condition he not be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, said that an Iraqi working for U.S. intelligence alerted U.S. troops stationed near the al Qaqaa weapons facility that the installation was being looted shortly after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003.
But, they said, the troops took no apparent action to halt the pillaging.
“That was one of numerous times when Iraqis warned us that ammo dumps and other places were being looted and we weren’t able to respond because we didn’t have anyone to send,” said a senior U.S. military officer who served in Iraq.
Now, if you want to keep playing the game of saying “I don’t trust this source, I don’t trust that newspaper…”, then there’s no point in discussing these issues with you. But those few lines alone are enough to relegate the WSJ article to the trash bin. When you add the footage of the explosives (taken nine days after the fall of Baghdad), David Kay’s assessments, etc., I really don’t see how you can remain so skeptical.
A couple of further points about the WSJ article:
Who the hell cares about the timing? Even if there was some political payback for the administration having ignored the IAEA’s assessment that Iraq had not reconstituted their nuclear program (they were RIGHT, Bush & co. were WRONG), so what? The fact remains that the U.S. failed to secure a number of sensitive sites due to terrible planning and/or a lack of manpower. That is not in dispute.
The crap about the 400,000 tons of munitions has been brought up only by those administration apologists who don’t care about the truth. I’ve covered that phony issue (apples and oranges) in a previous post.
With respect to those satellite images which the administration and it’s little media helpers keep bringing up: Guess what? Those trucks were NOT outside the bunkers containing the HMX and RDX. How do I know? Follow this link:
“Is there more than one way to “skin the cat”? Sure. But the cliche is rendered meaningless when you take into account that ALL SERIOUS OBSERVERS AGREE that we used too few troops.”
ALL SERIOUS OBSERVERS??? Do you have some source for this sweeping conclusion? Are we to gather that anyone who believes another approach to be better is not “SERIOUS”? Were any of these SERIOUS OBSERVERS members of the Joint Chiefs? How is it that some SERIOUS OBERSEVER can reach the correct conclusion based on less than all of the information available to the people that actually made the decision?
The WSJ has just as much credibility as a Knight-Ridder article which cites UNDISCLOSED sources. How convenient that nobody actually has to go on the record. While they obviously tend to lean conservative in their opinion pages, at least they aren’t making up facts and fabricating stories to suit their political beliefs and pasting this frauds on the front pages or in prime time (like the NYT and CBS News repeatedly do).
“Given that the sanctions and UN inspections were obviously working (i.e. NO WMD’s, no reconstituted nuclear program), how do you arrive at the conclusion that the UN was “ineffective”?”
The U.N. had cataloged a variety of WMD during the course of their weapons inspection regime? If they were there, and we can’t find them now, doesn’t that mean that the U.N. allowed the WMD to be transported to other countries in the region? There are books written about the U.N.’s ineffectiveness. I have given you several examples, i.e., the Oil for Food Program(the biggest financial fraud in the history of the WORLD) and leaving the explosives that we are soooo worried about in the hands of Saddam Hussein when they were asked to destroy them in the mid-1990s. Maybe you could give me one example of how the U.N. has been effective?
“The fact remains that the U.S. failed to secure a number of sensitive sites due to terrible planning and/or a lack of manpower. That is not in dispute.”
Sorry, but you have not established as a fact that any failure to secure a sensitive site was due to terrible planning or a lack of manpower.
“With respect to those satellite images which the administration and it’s little media helpers keep bringing up: Guess what? Those trucks were NOT outside the bunkers containing the HMX and RDX.”
As I
47.
tweell
BN, I recommend a course of study. It’s called logistics. The troops need food, bullets, gas, spare parts… When the French got Turkey nix the attack from their territory, all we had for staging was Kuwait. The harbors and airports in that tiny country were running at capacity. We had enough trouble supplying the troops we had, due to their speed of advance. (You know, ‘quagmire’?)
BTW, the same logistic bottleneck (only much narrower) dictated many of our actions in Afghanistan.
tweell
48.
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
OK Willy, let’s review:
You refuse to believe information which comes from the following sources:
The NY Times
Knight-Ridder (Which is, ironically, the ONE major American news organization which can hold it’s head high for not parroting the administration’s party line throughout this war debacle.)
ABC Television News videotape and the ABC reporters who were on the scene in Iraq.
David Kay, the principal weapons inspector assigned to Iraq by this administration.
L. Paul Bremer (“We never had enough troops on the ground.”).
And, by extension, anyone other that Sean Hannity or those who bolster your cause.
I will revise one comment: MOST serious observers…
Do YOU actually believe that we had enough troops on the ground? Or are you just “fighting the good fight”? Do you believe that those high up in the Pentagon are likely to express publicly their dismay with the way Rumsfeld & co. have run this war? After the way in which Shinseki, Clarke, O’ Neal, etc. were treated when they publicly criticized the administration? Please.
Your precious WSJ article said, in essence, that the IAEA’s timing might have been politically motivated, therefore the whole issue must be phony! It’s a pathetic attempt at misdirection. There is nothing new in the article, and certainly nothing that undermines what remains clear: The U.S. failed to secure numerous sites including Al Qaqaa (I know, David Kay, the troops in the 101st Airborne Division’s 2nd Brigade, and the ABC reporters are all lying).
You want to cling to the delusions that there were enough troops, and that Al Qaqaa was not looted after the fall of Baghdad? Be my guest. And if you pay close attention to the information which surfaces after Kerry takes office, you’ll have your “proof”.
49.
tweell
What you cannot refute, ignore. (snicker)
Nice try, BN.
tweell
50.
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
Tweel-
I don’t doubt for a second that it would have been logistically beneficial for the U.S. to have been able to use Turkey as a staging area.
So I suppose that when Turkey opted out, we couldn’t have delayed the invasion until the logistics were sorted out because the threat of that mushroom cloud was gathering so quickly.
Wait, perhaps it was Saddam’s responsibility for 9-11.
No, sorry, it was the imminent threat posed by Saddam’s close ties with Al Qeada and his willingness to sponsor terror.
No no, I almost forgot, it was his brutality towards his fellow citizens, coupled with that outrageous Oil for Food scandal.
Oh, and by the way, we had as many troops on the ground as Rumsfeld wanted (Turkey or no Turkey). Are you suggesting that with better logistical support we could have secured all of the sensitive sites, policed the whole country, etc. with the same number of troops?
By the way, thanks for the course recommendation!
51.
willyb
Bill Nye:
Given ITS history, I do not give any credence to NYT. Regarding the Knight-Ridder article, my specific complaint relates to UNDISCLOSED sources. As for the rest of the media you listed (ABC, etc.), if you want to trust them, go ahead. I prefer proof that rises to a level above gossip or some “journalists'” pipe dreams.
You are the one that seems to be the one practicing misdirection. I give EVERY administration the benefit of the doubt. You are the one making allegations of mismanagement based on third-hand information.
I notice you didn’t give me an example of where the U.N. has been effective. I also noticed that you still have not presented any sort of proof that the al Qaqaa explosives were there at the start of the war, and were lost DUE TO POOR PLANNING OR A LACK OF MANPOWER. You should reread your “sources,” they offer no PROOF of your accusations.
52.
willyb
“Do YOU actually believe that we had enough troops on the ground? Or are you just “fighting the good fight”?”
I am no expert in these matters, and if I were, I would need access to the intelligence needed to make such an assessment. What credentials do you have to make such an assessment? Did you have access to all of the intelligence?
“Do you believe that those high up in the Pentagon are likely to express publicly their dismay with the way Rumsfeld & co. have run this war?”
If the approach used by our military was so clearly flawed, what would these undisclosed sources have to fear? They would be made heros by the NYT and CBS News. While I don’t completely discount undisclosed sources, I will not use this type of “evidence” as the sole basis for a conclusion. Especially in view of the way media, like NYT and CBS News, spins facts to suit their political view.
53.
willyb
Bill Nye:
Thought you might be interested in reading Andrew Sullivan’s endorsement of John Kerry. I was particularly interested in his comments about the United Nations….
“I know few people enthused about John Kerry. His record is undistinguished, and where it stands out, mainly regrettable. He intuitively believes that if a problem exists, it is the government’s job to fix it. He has far too much faith in international institutions, like the corrupt and feckless United Nations, in the tasks of global management. He got the Cold War wrong. He got the first Gulf War wrong. His campaign’s constant and excruciating repositioning on the war against Saddam have been disconcerting, to say the least. I completely understand those who look at this man’s record and deduce that he is simply unfit to fight a war for our survival. They have an important point — about what we know historically of his character and his judgment when this country has faced dire enemies. His scars from the Vietnam War lasted too long and have gone too deep to believe that he has clearly overcome the syndrome that fears American power rather than understands how to wield it for good.” –Andrew Sullivan, The New Republic, endorsing John Kerry
54.
Robin Roberts
Bill, you call yourself the “science guy” but you copy ridiculous junk science like that silliness about “dirty” bombs. Kill thousands? Render “large areas” uninhabitable for months or years? Claptrap and Nonsense.
As for the “not enough troops” meme, your standards are laughable. Your evaluation of WWII would be to call FDR incompetent for allowing millions of people to die at the hands of Nazi Germany because we didn’t invade Europe for 2 1/2 years.
55.
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
Willy,
You’re sloppy recent posts, probably due to pre-likely-to-lose-the-election-fatigue, are becoming tiresome.
If you don’t understand why those in the military are reluctant to go on record while being critical of this administration, then you simply aren’t paying the slightest attention to what has been going on.
“gossip or some “journalists'” pipe dreams.”
That’s how you characterize videotape evidence and eyewitness accounts? You really must have drunk the Kool-Aid.
” I also noticed that you still have not presented any sort of proof that the al Qaqaa explosives were there at the start of the war, and were lost DUE TO POOR PLANNING OR A LACK OF MANPOWER. You should reread your “sources,” they offer no PROOF of your accusations.”
For the last time, Willy:
David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, said he was not at all surprised at the report, which was initially revealed in Monday’s New York Times.
“Al-Qaqaa had been heavily looted in April and May,” said Kay, who left Iraq at the end of 2003 after reaching the conclusion that the country did not have weapons of mass destruction. Kay, who first visited Al-Qaqaa as a U.N. inspector in 1991, said the facility was not guarded after the U.S.-led invasion in early 2003 and was not being guarded when he left Iraq.
“The extraordinary thing would be to find a site that was really guarded,” Kay said. But, he added, the facilities were numerous and often encompassed hundreds of acres.
“There weren’t enough troops to guard the ministry buildings,” Kay said. “It’s a result of not having enough troops on the ground. And it would have been a very large number. This is not a small thing.”
That was the CHIEF WEAPONS INSPECTOR OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION stating in no uncertain terms that we failed to secure sensitive sights because there weren’t enough troops.
“If the approach used by our military was so clearly flawed, what would these undisclosed sources have to fear?”
Once again you have displayed a level of ignorance which can only be explained by the dreaded and endemic RTHOFN (Relying Too Heavily on Fox News) syndrome”.
What could they have to fear??? Just take a look at the appalling attacks leveled against every admirable public servant who dared to publicly criticize this administration. Forced early retirement (Shinseki) was the BEST case scenario.
Thanks for pointing out that Andrew Sullivan, someone I frequently look to for penetrating insights, believes that the U.N. is “corrupt and feckless”. I am not a U.N. apologist; they can and should do better. But given the utter incompetence and corruption tainting this administration, it is disgusting that Sullivan would attempt to denegrate Kerry in that manner (quite an endorsement).
56.
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
Robin-
I see that you compensated for piping (or is that peeping?) up so late in the game by offering an exhaustive and penetrating critique of my earlier posts. Very impressive work!
I should add that I was particularly humbled by your taught, incisive WWII analogy. You must have been an invaluable member of your school’s debate team.
57.
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
Willy and the gang-
I’m off to savor the impending Kerry victory. You might want to bet a few bucks on him, as it might some of the sting out of the otherwise humbling defeat.
Thanks for sparring; perhaps we’ll do it again sometime soon.
Bill
58.
willyb
Bill Nye:
Where in quote you attribute to David Kay does it say that the al Qaqaa explosives at issue were there at the start of the war, and were lost DUE TO POOR PLANNING OR A LACK OF MANPOWER? Do you comprehend English???? You have yet to prove the explosives were there, never mind proving that they were lost through bad planning or a lack of manpower.
“What could they have to fear??? Just take a look at the appalling attacks leveled against every admirable public servant who dared to publicly criticize this administration.”
Thats what happens to people when they introduce OPINIONS into a political process. You will note that I prefaced my “what would these undisclosed sources have to fear” comment by a qualifier: IF THE APPROACH USED BY OUR MILITARY WAS SO CLEARLY FLAWED. Obviously, what we have here is the OPINION of undisclosed sources. Sounds an awful lot like sour grapes on their part.
Since you seem to be regurgitating Democrat talking points, I assume you are a John Kerry supporter. A few more John Kerry endorsements for your reading pleasure:
“I can’t remember ever voting for anybody I disliked as much as I do John Kerry, at least not for president, but vote for him I will. I didn’t have much use for Al Gore either, but I don’t remember any real sense of hostility before punching the hole next to his name…. I can’t persuade anybody to vote for a candidate for whom I can muster so little enthusiasm, but there must be an awful lot of people out there who are going to cast votes next week for Kerry who are, like me, discouraged by the prospect and needing one of those you-are-not-alone talks.” –Mark Brown, Chicago Sun-Times, endorsing John Kerry
“I remain totally unimpressed by John Kerry. Outside of his opposition to the death penalty, I’ve never seen him demonstrate any real political courage. His baby steps in the direction of reform liberalism during the 1990s were all followed by hasty retreats. His Senate vote against the 1991 Gulf War demonstrates an instinctive aversion to the use of American force, even when it’s clearly justified. Kerry’s major policy proposals in this campaign range from implausible to ill-conceived. He has no real idea what to do differently in Iraq. His health-care plan costs too much to be practical and conflicts with his commitment to reducing the deficit. At a personal level, he strikes me as the kind of windbag that can only emerge when a naturally pompous and self-regarding person marinates for two decades inside the U.S. Senate. If elected, Kerry would probably be a mediocre, unloved president on the order of Jimmy Carter.” –Jacob Weisberg, Slate, endorsing John Kerry
Comments are closed.
Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!
felixrayman
Huh. A NY Post article is full of blatant lies. There’s a one billionth time for everything I guess.
Aaron
And 1 trillionth time someone calls someone a liar in a comments post without any evidence that they lied.
Disprove any of this 11 points…they are quite nicely laid out and clear cut.
Geek, Esq.
So, the response to what objective observers agree is conclusive proof is to cover one’s ears and refuse to listen to the truth?
Bravo, Mr. Peters. Let it never be said that the post values intelligence over party loyalty.
ABC news just totally destroyed the fig leaf that Bush’s supporters are hiding behind.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847
Anyone who calls the statement that this stuff disappeared after US troops arrived, quite frankly, needs to rent a new brain.
This reminds me of hardcore Bush haters who still insist that the Dan Rather documents were real.
Denial is an ugly thing.
felixrayman
From the article:
“Our 101st Airborne Division assumed responsibility for the sector as the 3ID closed on Baghdad. None of the Screaming Eagles found any IAEA markers
HH
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002892.php
felixrayman
OK HH, now do you have any sources that are, at the least, coherent?
dwight meredith
What David Kay said (Scroll down a bit to find Kay’s interview).
None
Proove that these 17, yes count their seventeeness. Roll around in it, say “seventeen” at least 17 times. Yes these seventeen claims about batboy in the Weekly World News are credible because there are seventeen of them!
Fox News is more credible than the NY Post. The NY Post reported that Gehphardt would be the Democratic VP nominee!
If the NY Post reported that the sky was blue I’d take a look.
If Fox reported the sky was blue I’d wonder why.
pleasewakeupy'all
***So, the response to what objective observers agree is conclusive proof is to cover one’s ears and refuse to listen to the truth?***
Hmmm, sums up the whole liberal media myth strategy quite nicely.
Mikey
I guess no one can apply reason and common sense to experience. Does anyone seriously think that a large scale movement of nearly four hundred tons of explosives was moved from underneath the noses of the US Army and Air Force? While those military organizations were active in that area?
Let me ask a better question – would you be willing to be part of such a movement of high explosives under US air supremacy and through US army units?
If you do, can I have your tv?
CadillaqJaq
It’s becoming more obvious to me as the hours and days pass… Halliburton sneaked into al QaQaa, right under the noses of the entire U.S. military, and spirited those deadly explosives out of the installation. Probably with the intent to use them against the U.S. one day when they decide to take over and rule the entire planet. Then there will be no more discussion about those nasty no-bid contracts ever again.
BUT, regardless what ABC’s video film might lead some to believe, I’m on the side of our military personnel and their version of the story. Logic forces one to consider that much of Saddam’s weaponry of all types was moved in the final weeks leading up to the invasion. To believe that Saddam would have left the al QaQaa installation up for grabs defys any type of twisted logic.
What ABC says or thinks doesn’t necessarily make it so.
Sandi
-Felix
“A videotape made by a television crew with American troops when they opened bunkers at a sprawling Iraqi munitions complex south of Baghdad shows a huge supply of explosives still there nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein, apparently including some sealed earlier by the International Atomic Energy Agency”.
Using the most generous interpretation, there’s not anywhere near 380 tons of explosives shown in any of the KSTP film/photographs, nor in all of them put together.
HH
http://wizbangblog.com
HH
John you need to update… Kerry is for it again.
Bill Nye the (Poiltical) Science Guy
That he would uncritically post a link to (and recommend) such a partisan
Lunch
If this invasion truly was about concerns of terrorinsm and not the more nefarious motivates that actually seem more likely; then concluding that planning for this invasion and it’s aftermath was inept is not solely based on this event.
Any argument that this administration did not negligently turn over to our enemies 760,000 lbs. of high explosives requires an underlying assumption of competence within the civilian leadership; something that has never been demonstrated.
pleasewakeupy'all
In a quiet moment, do you ever reflect on the record of this administration with regard to judgement, integrity, and competence, despite your ideological agreement, think–“these guys are embarassing, we have to go another direction?”
Of course you do.
willyb
“That he would uncritically post a link to (and recommend) such a partisan
Bill Nye the (Poiltical) Science Guy
OK Willy, since you are apperantly getting your news from John and/or Fox, I’ll tell you.
The truth is that this administration went to war (which was in and of itself a huge mistake, but I’ll set that aside for the moment) without proper planning and without enough troops. The evidence for both of these monumental blunders is overwhelming, and if you doubt my word there are plenty of Republicans (including Hawks) from former administrations who have arrived at the very same conclusions.
The issue which is being discussed on this thread is just one, albeit a very important example of how the lack of both planning and failure to provide enough troops has hurt badly. The troops which first came upon sensitive sites were not instructed to secure those sites, in spite of the fact that the IAEA had warned the U.S. to do so. Instead, they were ordered to roll on to Baghdad. That is a result of either unbelievably poor planning and/or a lack of necessary manpower. there is no other possible explanation.
There are too many other examples to list, but again, these two fundamental mistakes are clear to anyone who is not involved in this administration’s desperate scramble for another term.
If you are wondering why such basic
Bill Nye the (Poiltical) Science Guy
Here’s a timely follow-up from a Knight-Ridder newswire article written today. It speaks to both the main issue of this thread and the larger issue which I mention above:
In a new disclosure, the senior U.S. military officer and another U.S. official, who also spoke on condition he not be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, said that an Iraqi working for U.S. intelligence alerted U.S. troops stationed near the al Qaqaa weapons facility that the installation was being looted shortly after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003.
But, they said, the troops took no apparent action to halt the pillaging.
“That was one of numerous times when Iraqis warned us that ammo dumps and other places were being looted and we weren’t able to respond because we didn’t have anyone to send,” said a senior U.S. military officer who served in Iraq.
Geek, Esq.
You forgot the best part, Bill–the part where it was revealed the Rumsfeld let Chalabi determine that al QaQaa was not a high priority.
syn
I thought these weapons never existed? The same people saying that Bush is an imperialist warmonger because Saddam didn’t have weapons are now saying that Bush is negligent because he allowed looting of weapons that apparently never existed.
I am voting for Bush because it’s insane to believe the crazy people.
dwight meredith
Syn: have you got a link for the proposition that anyone ever suggested that Iraq did not have conventional explosives?
The WMD were universally understood to include only nuclear, biological, and cehmical weapons.
For anyone to suggest that the exstence of conventional explosives in Iraq was at issue in the decission to go to war is just intellectually dishonest.
After all, the weapons we are talking about were located, inventoried, and sealed by the IEAE prior to the war. Does suugests that their existence was widely known.
Your better talking point is that the administraton did not let the insurgents get their hands on all of the weapons and explosives in Iraq. And for that, I suppose, they deserve appropriate credit. The failure to completely screw up should always be noted.
Ken
“Any argument that this administration did not negligently turn over to our enemies 760,000 lbs. of high explosives requires an underlying assumption of competence within the civilian leadership; something that has never been demonstrated.”
What the Hell are you talking about? These explosives were in the hands of our enemies for years. The worst that can be said is that we failed to take this one batch of explosives away from our enemies.
Yes, Saddam Hussein was our enemy. We were at war with him. He was shooting at our planes for years, planes that had every right to be there according to a cease-fire agreement that he signed. And I don’t really give a shit how much cooperation he did or did not give to al-Queda or similar organizations – if al-Queda could cross the line, jump the ocean, and stage attacks in the United States, why not some of the other fun collection of whackjobs that openly declare themselves the sworn enemies of the United States, a collection that most certainly included Saddam Hussein?
(Not to mention that he was in the way of us forcibly preventing Iran from building nukes, an operation that will most likely need to begin fairly soon.)
Now also, if we assume for the moment that the stuff was taken in the early days of the invasion because of a shortage of troops, it would be a good idea to remember why there was a shortage of troops in the early days of the invasion. It wasn’t the “hopeless incompetence” of the Bush administration – it was the lack of cooperation on the part of Turkey that forced half the troops committed to the operation to take the long way around and prevented them from showing up when they were supposed to. And no, Kerry going to Turkey and saying “pretty please with a cherry on top” wouldn’t have produced better results.
Sandi
-Dwight
The only reason the IEAE sealed them was because much of it was also classified as detonator material for neuclear weapons. If it was construction dynamyte and cord they would have left it as it wouldn’t have been banned.
willyb
Bill Nye:
I thought you were talking about the truth of the explosives issue??? Were the explosives at al Qaqaa after the start of the war or were they moved prior to that time? If they were there at the time the war began, were they subsequently destroyed by the American military or looted by insurgents?
I heard that the video shot by ABC was at GPS coordinates that were 3 miles south of al Qaqaa. I also heard that the American military moved approximately 250 tons from al Qaqaa sometime around April 13, 2003. What about the aerial photos that show a number of trucks at al Qaqaa sometine in March 2003?
I would say that we need additional facts before we can conclude that the truth was reported by the NYT earlier this week. Based on what I know, the New York Posts’ version of the truth is just as “truthful” as the NYT’s. Wouldn’t you agree?
Bill Nye the (Poiltical) Science Gu
Willy-
I appreciate your reasonable tone. As to your questions…
I thought that it was important to point out the broader “truths”, in large part because they are directly related to what went wrong in this specific (explosives) case.
At the same time, I did lay out an accurate, up-to-date set of facts and pertinent quotes. And while I don’t claim that ALL of the facts have been produced, enough is known to confidently establish the following:
a. The explosives WERE there after the war began
Steve Malynn
Bill, there is a reason that most military types agree with Col. Peters: we understand the difference between explosives that are in unprocessed form (barrells of white powder) and those with fuses attached (artillery shells and bombs). During the conduct of the fighting, 250 tons of the latter, immediately dangerous, munitions were secured from al QaQaa and destroyed.
It is not known what happened to the raw, unprocessed powder HMX, and the bulk of the RMX that had been dispursed after the Jan 03 “sealing”. Which points out the fallicy of relying on the wire “seals”. Until rechecking in March 03 the IAEA did not know Saddam had moved 138 tons of the RMX (and the IAEA misreported to the NYTimes) – the seals did not stop Saddam from doing what he pleased with the explosives. The IAEA did not look behind their wires to see if the HMX was actually there. In the infantry we know that an obstacle is only effective if it is being observed. To date there has been no report of a bomb made from the missing HMX/RMX.
Bill, its goofy to imply that a mission cannot be attempted if 100% perfection is not accomplished. Saddam had possession of between 600,000 and 1 Million tons of conventional and banned explosives (long range missles, WMDs, and dual use nuke precursors). Priority of detection was likely for WMDs and banned munitions, munitions that posed immediate danger, and only then raw material. The HMX used as a conventional explosive has less utility than the sea of munitions Iraq was awash in: remember most schoolhouses filled with RPGs, grenades and small arms. Not to mention rockets and artillery shells in Mosques.
The higher explosive rating of the raw HMX, compared to a rocket warhead, is a function of the powder not yet being mixed with binder and filler, as is necessary to make it a plastic, useable, explosive.
Bill Nye the (Poiltical) Science Guy
Steve-
I don’t understand your reference to the “fallacy” of relying on the seals. The seals were obviously never designed (nor meant) to prevent someone from removing material; they were in place to signal whether or not the bunker in question had been breached. The IAEA did not have to “look behind” the wires to see if the HMX was there; If the wires (seals) were intact, then it must have been there.
Your point that “there has been no report of a bomb made from the missing HMX/RMX” may be well intended, but it carries no weight. Do you seriously believe that if this administration knew of such evidence, they would report it? Given their record, that notion would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.
No one, including myself, would suggest that 100% perfection is expected, let alone required. But your regurgitation of the administration’s talking point on the total relative amount of weapons in Iraq is hardly compelling. The IAEA sealed and warned the U.S. about the need to secure those particular weapons for a reason: they are particularly dangerous. It may well be easier for an unsophisticated insurgent to use an RPG and the like, but it is naive to think that the HMX could not, or should I say, has not fallen into the hands of terrorists who have the capability of putting it to full use.
One of the principal rationales for going to war with Iraq in the first place was because of the threat of WMD’s. And while that rationale has been exposed for what it was (empty), how can you possibly rationalize the U.S. FAILING to secure material that is an important part of that potential threat? The sad truth is that we (not just our soldiers) were MORE safe when those materials were under IAEA watch and seal, and we knew who was responsible (Saddam) if they were tampered with.
Finally, I expect that your vote will help Kerry win Ohio, not only because you seem thoughtful and open-minded, but because you probably have a soft-spot for litigators!
Ken
“Ah, now I get it, it was Turkey’s fault!”
That makes a Hell of a lot more sense than saying it was Bush’s fault. The number of troops on hand in the early days of the operation and available to do things like babysit munitions dumps was not determined by Bush’s plan, but by Turkey’s noncooperation.
“Your point that “there has been no report of a bomb made from the missing HMX/RMX” may be well intended, but it carries no weight. Do you seriously believe that if this administration knew of such evidence, they would report it? Given their record, that notion would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.”
You mean their record of not broadcasting to the whole world every problem on our side? That strikes me as quite sensible.
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
“The number of troops on hand in the early days of the operation…was not determined by Bush’s plan, but by Turkey’s noncooperation.”
Come on, Ken, you’re kidding, right? Not determined by our own war plan? Even those who are politically aligned with you would choke on that one. It is well documented that the military planners in the Pentagon recommended (or should I say urged) that we send many, many more troops in order to secure Iraq. Rumsfeld and his civilian cohorts overruled them, humiliated General Shinseki for publicly stating that we would need minimum of 350,000 troops, and, of course, (Rumsfeld, et al) turned out to be dead wrong (pun intended).
“…broadcasting to the whole world every problem on our side?”
Given that this is, by any objective measure, the most secretive administration in history, it would be refreshing if they were to broadcast ONE thing that wasn’t politically advantageous. More to the point, the looting of these munitions dumps was no secret in Iraq, and it’s hard to see how admitting an already well-known mistake would greatly increase any risk.
As an aside, when Bush loses on Tuesday, his (and his administration’s) unwillingness to admit ANY mistakes will have played a significant role in his downfall.
willyb
Bill Nye:
I still don’t see where there is proof of the explosives being in sealed bunkers at the time the war began. Just saying they were there, no question about it, does not make it so. What is the basis of your conclusion.
Regarding the sealed bunkers, it is my understanding that there were ventilation shafts that would have allowed access without breaking the IAEA seals. What about the large number of trucks visible on satellite photos taken in March 2003, before the war began?
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
Willy,
From yesterday’s NY Times:
“The photographs are consistent with what I know of Al Qaqaa,” said David A. Kay, a former American official who led the recent hunt in Iraq for unconventional weapons and visited the vast site. “The damning thing is the seals. The Iraqis didn’t use seals on anything. So I’m absolutely sure that’s an I.A.E.A. seal.”
One weapons expert said the videotape and some of the agency’s photographs of the HMX stockpiles “were such good matches it looked like they were taken by the same camera on the same day.”
Independent experts said several other factors – the geography; the number of bunkers; the seals on some of the bunker doors; the boxes, crates and barrels similar to those seen by weapon inspectors – confirm that the videotape was taken at Al Qaqaa.
“There’s not another place that you would mistake it for,” said Dean Staley, the KSTP reporter, who now works in Seattle.
The accidental news encounter began last year after the invasion, Mr. Staley recalled in an interview. Their Army unit arrived in the region on Friday, April 11, and made camp. The Fifth Battalion of the 101st Airborne’s 159th Aviation Brigade flew helicopter missions from the camp in the Iraqi desert, moving troops and supplies to the front.
A week later, on Friday, April 18, two journalists recalled, they joined two soldiers who were driving in a Humvee to investigate the nearby bunkers. Among other things, wandering inside the cavernous buildings offered the prospect of relief from the desert sun.
“It was just by chance that we were able to go,” said Joe Caffrey, the team’s photographer. “They wanted to go out and we asked to tag along.”
They visited a half dozen bunkers, he said. The gloomy interiors revealed long rows of boxes, crates and barrels, what independent experts said were three kinds of HMX containers shipped to Iraq from France, China and Yugoslavia.
The team opened storage containers, some of which contained white powder that independent experts said was consistent with HMX.
“The soldiers were pretty much in awe of what they were seeing,” Mr. Caffrey recalled. “They were saying their E.O.D. – Explosive Ordinance Division, people who blow this kind of stuff up – would have a field day.”
The journalists filmed roughly 25 minutes of video. Mr. Caffrey added that the team left the bunker doors open. “It would have been easy for anybody to get in,” he said.
Mr. Staley recalled that during the drive back to camp, they saw a red Toyota pickup truck with some Iraqis in it. “Our impression was they were looters,” he said. “This was a no man’s land. It was a huge facility, and we worried that they were bad guys who might come up on us.”
The two journalists filed a short story, which ran soon thereafter in Minneapolis-St. Paul.
In the interview, Mr. Caffrey said he had carefully rechecked the date on the cassette for his camera, adding that he was sure it was April 18, 2003.
What more proof do you need, Willy?
Bloggerhead
As a preliminary matter, props to Bill for bringing us all up to speed re: Al Qaqaa. John, your link to Ralph’s conflicted (and conflicting) reasons that the truth can’t be what it appears to was, what, 18 hours behind the state of play–I mean, soooo October 28th–what with the release on Thursday of that embedded video showing explosives under IAEA seal in the 3ID’s possession.
Steve, I’m not going to pretend to be able to rebut your perspective regarding military matters. From your comments here and elsewhere, you’ve shown yourself to be expert and reasonable, if occasionally tendentious: but who isn’t around here? Still, there are two general points you’ve raised that I’d like to address.
First, you point out (in congress with administration excuse no. 2, that these missing explosives are inconsequential in a nation awash in munitions) that Iraq had 600,000 to a million tons of munitions. We’ve all heard the administration trumpet the fact that we’ve disposed with 400,000 tons of various types. But assuming an average of your figures above, that means we’ve done no more than half the job, and we’ve controlled most of the country for 18 months. Surely, with a better post-war plan, more troops and more of a coalition (no blame for which can fall on the military), a better outcome was possible.
Second, no one can dispute that the military was forced into the position of having to prioritize its targets, with taking out the regime and finding evidence of WMD (and protecting the oil ministry, presumably) among the first-tier objectives. But it would appear that the need to prioritize is inversely proportional to the number of troops and the efficacy of the post-occupation plan. Therefore, it is the president’s conception, and not the military’s conduct of the war that is put at issue by Al Qaqaa. Particularly noteworthy in this regard is the conduct of the administration’s pre-war pupput, Chalabi, who in persuading the administration that Al Qaqaa was not a high priority, despite the IAEA’s clearly deeming it as such, has shown himself again to have been the one pulling the strings.
I can’t be the only one who’s sick and tired of the fools that this adminsitration has been made out to be by the likes of Chalabi (and many neo-cons, for that matter). And now we’ve got bin Laden talking smack, motherfucker, when we were led to believe that, if alive, he was hooked to an iron lung, or something, at death’s door, in some cave surrounded by Pakistani forces. It kind of reminds me of the administration’s shock-and-awe period, when we were told that we had special forces all over Iraq and were, in fact, in contact with many Iraqi military commanders. Still, the insurgency turned out to be such a big surprise. As Osama’s video demonstrates, talk is cheap; unfortunately, it can wind up getting so many people killed.
Oh, and Willy, the satellite pictures of Iraqi trucks at Al Qaqaa in March are pretty much a dead letter regarding the missing explosives, since the trucks were not parked outside the bunkers that contained them.
willyb
Bill Nye:
No offense intended, but I do not believe much of anything in the NYT. I used to read it and try to reconcile their version of the truth to actual documents and always found a definite spin to their “reporting.” TAn example would be the way they spun the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing back when they were trying to make the case that Bush was warned about 9/11 before it happened. So, if your proof relies on anything reported in the NYT, I say it’s no proof to me. You know, fool me once, shame on you… I am even more sensitive to this issue after the Dan Rather memogate incident.
Bloggerhead:
Based on the DOD press briefing with Major Pearson, not all of the aerial photos have been released. The photo that has been released indicated a fair amount of activity at the al Qaqaa complex in the month preceding the start of the war. The spokesman for DOD indicated there were many more photos, and that they were still analyzing them. How can you be so sure that the explosives in question were not removed by Saddam’s thugs?
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
Willy,
Healthy skepticism of the mainstream media is one thing, but you’re bordering on paranoia!
The section that I quoted above from The Times includes quotes from David Kay, this administration’s most recent (before it’s current) chief weapons inspector in Iraq. If you don’t believe what he’s saying, then who, exactly, do you believe? The reporters who covered the site from Minneapolis are local ABC reporters. Are you suspicious of them as well?
Perhaps you would feel more comfortable listening to a professor from the U.S. Naval War College.
Thanks to a link provided by Josh Marshall, here’s an article written by just such a person in USA Today just over one year ago:
What happened to looted Iraqi nuclear material?
By Brett Wagner
The release Thursday of chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay’s report detailing America’s six-month search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has reinflamed the debate over whether anyone will ever uncover that country’s alleged stockpiles of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.
A great irony, however, seems to have gotten lost in that debate: As a direct result of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq without sufficient forces to secure and protect its nuclear research and storage facilities from rampant looting, enough radioactive material to build scores of dirty bombs now is missing and may be on its way to the international black market.
It didn’t have to turn out this way. In the weeks before the invasion, the U.S. military repeatedly warned the White House that its war plans did not include sufficient ground forces, air and naval operations and logistical support to guarantee a successful mission. Those warnings were discounted
willyb
Bill Nye:
Don’t you find it somewhat strange to take the words of one, or a handful, of so-called military experts when it is clear that others have come down with advice that is to the contrary? Do you really believe that the consensus of the administration’s joint chiefs of staff was not to proceed as the administration did?
Perhaps it would have been better not to address the scary issues raised by professor at the U.S. Naval War College, i.e., leave Saddam alone and let the weapons inspectors do their inspections. I mean, after all, the U.N. is such an effective organization (LOL). The explosives in question were apparently an issue after the first Gulf war. If they were such an eminent danger, why did the U.N. allow them to exist for 12+ years.? The following is from the 10/27/2004 WSJ (page A27):
“In the late 1980s, Saddam Hussein’s regime purchased large stocks of the explosives HMX, RDX and PETN from suppliers in China, Yugoslavia and — deep breath now — France. Ostensibly, these explosives have their civilian applications, such as mining and demolition. But because they are both chemically stable (they only detonate when properly fused) and highly explosive, they also have extensive military uses. They are common in conventional military ordnance, such as mines and artillery shells. They are uniquely well-suited for terrorist attacks; less than a pound of these explosives brought down Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. And they can be used as triggers to set off a nuclear chain reaction.
Following the first Gulf War, the International Atomic Energy Agency put the Qaqaa cache under seal, where it remained until U.N. inspectors were kicked out in 1998. Upon the inspectors’ return in late 2002, some 35 tons of HMX were found to be missing; the Iraqis claimed some of it had been removed for civilian use.”
How do you know that any future problems we may face with respect to these explosives won’t be caused by the 35 TONS that were missing when the inspectors returned in 2002? Frankly, the effectiveness of the U.N. has been pathetic, or worse. If the IAEA had destroyed the explosives in question in the mid-1990s, as was requested by the U.S., this whole issue would be moot. And a good argument can be made that the U.N.’s piss poor mismanagement of the Oil for Food Program thwarted the U.N. sanctions and kept Saddam in power. All at the expense of the Iraqi people. Not to mention the huge issues raised by the blantant fraud being committed by several Security Council members (the same ones that voted against the use of force in Iraq) in connection with this U.N. adminstered fiasco.
Do you really believe the threats posed by these weapons falling into the hands of terrorists would have been lessened by the inspection approach? This is the kind of attitude that got us in the situation we found ourselves in during Mr. Clinton’s terms in office… use international bureaucrats and the American legal system to pursue terrorism. Clearly nothing done by Mr. Clinton had the effect of dissuading the vermin that perpetrated 9/11. And using the same rationale being used today to blame Bush for the execution of war plans, would have tarred and feathered Mr. Clinton during his terms in office. Look at the U.S.S. Cole. How could any CIC have let this happen. Look at Somalia. How could any CIC have let us end up in the tactical situation we found ourselves in Somalia? Why didn’t Clinton respond then?
My point of bringing up Clinton is not to change the subject, it is the subject. NO CIC can handle every aspect of his administration. He must rely on other people to handle the details, including planning details. This whole issue, which involves some suspicious timing of U.N. documents, seems to be blown out of proportion. The point is we should locate these explosives if they are out there, not locate blame for them being out there. There is enough blame to go around on this issue.
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
Willy,
I think that we’re beginning to splinter into too many different directions now, though admittedly they are related.
The reason that I pointed to the USA Today article is that it underscores the fact that we did not have enough troops to secure Iraq after we had invaded. That is the main theme of this whole thread, and the most recent (Al Qaqaa) example is, unfortunately, just one of many. I don’t want to argue this point any further, as it seems painfully clear to me that the fact is very well-established.
As to your first question above, my understanding is that there was no such division amongst the Joint Chiefs. This was, in essence, a fight between the military establishment and the civilian wing of the Pentagon. General Shinseki was notable for his candor in public, but the reports (some of them ‘insider’) that I have read all suggest that the other principal military planners agreed that we needed far more troops than the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz plan (experiment) called for.
Here are the first couple of paragraphs from an article which appeared in the New Yorker in April of 2003. This was, of course, well before we knew of the full extent of the problems relating to lack of troops on the ground.
As the ground campaign against Saddam Hussein faltered last week, with attenuated supply lines and a lack of immediate reinforcements, there was anger in the Pentagon. Several senior war planners complained to me in interviews that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his inner circle of civilian advisers, who had been chiefyl responsible for persuading President Bush to lead the country into war, had insisted on micromanaging the war
Steve Malynn
Ken, at Chicagoboyz.net answers you well Bill:
“Now we are told that Bush should be turned out of office because his “incompetence” caused us to lose (maybe) a couple of hundred tons of explosives from a warehouse in Iraq. Now keep in mind that these aren’t the dreaded WMD (which didn’t exist, remember?), and these aren’t plain old regular explosives, either (or else this wouldn’t be such a big deal), but a nifty new category of munition, not powerful enough to justify an invasion but just powerful enough for their disappearance to justify Bush’s ouster.”
Steve Malynn
The conclusion of the article on Chicagoboyz.net:
“Now the one thing that strikes me about the military efforts to date is just how incredibly successful they’ve been, and how masterfully planned and executed they turned out to be. Not perfect, of course (You mean there’s terrorists setting off explosives? Against Americans and their supporters? In the Middle East, no less? Say it isn’t so!). But a lot of the toys that John Kerry voted against turned out to be damned useful in the War on Terror. I don’t want to even think about how an Afghanistan operation with Vietnam-era technology and tactics would have gone for us – I think in that case we’d have been wishing for another Vietnam. And if you’ve ever cracked a history book, you’ll realize that only 1200 deaths in a year and a half of invading a dictatorship, overthrowing its dictator, and fighting a chronic insurgency is astoundingly good news, especially when added to the fact that the long-predicted flood of refugees never materialized, the terrorists that Saddam’s regime had nothing whatsoever to do with suddenly got extremely interested in the fate of Iraq (and no, we’re not turning peaceful, simple folk into bloodthirsty terrorists – at worst, we’re forcing them to choose their side a little sooner than they would have on their own, and denying them the option of biding their time until the Great Satan looks sufficiently weak to try their hand at terrorism on their chosen terms), and Iraqis are still signing up to take on the battle for their country against these thugs and getting set to vote in their first-ever real election in a couple of months.
And the Commander-in-Chief at the helm during these amazing accomplishments is called incompetent? You’ve got to be kidding me.
Posted by ken on October 29, 2004 11:38 PM”
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
Steve,
Do those quotes really mirror your thoughts? If so, then I’m very disappointed.
This administration’s (not solely Bush’s) incompetence has been revealed in numerous instances; the clear failure to send enough troops and plan properly for the post-war security of Iraq is just one example.
The other issue raised in the first paragragh is a red herring. Any serious observor recognizes that:
a. Iraq had no WMD’s (i.e. chemical, biological or nuclear) when we invaded.
b. The high explosives such as HMX are potentially very dangerous in the hands of terrorists, should have remained secured, but clearly do not fall into the WMD category.
c. No one has created “new category of munition”. These categories are (and have been) clearly defined all along.
With respect to the longer quote, I doubt that you and I can have a meaningful dialogue if you believe that the war in Iraq has been “masterfully planned and executed”.
With the exception of those in the administration who are clinging desperately to power, I don’t know of any serious observer who would agree with that statement. And that includes a long, long list of people in important positions who have no axe to grind (John McCain admitted, just a few minutes ago, that many mistakes had been made, etc.).
Ken also reveals one of the most insidious problems resulting from this administration’s refusal to be honest with the American people (and the world) about the war and it’s consequences. I don’t have to crack a single history book to recognize the myopic and xenophobic nature of talking about “only 1,200 deaths”. What about the 20-30,000 civilian deaths which have resulted (thus far) from the “liberation” of Iraq?
Finally, the notion that the people who are fighting against the U.S. and terrorizing both the troops and civilians would otherwise have been “biding their time until the Great Satan looks sufficiently weak to try their hand at terrorism on their chosen terms” reveals a grotesque and frankly racist perspective on Ken’s part.
I do hope that you cut and pasted that garbage because you were in a hurry, and hadn’t taken the time to digest it fully.
willyb
Bill Nye:
What does it say to you when seemingly competent people disagree on the appropriate course of action? To me it says there is probably more than one way to “skin the cat.” I have no idea what really went on in these planning meetings. Whether the source you are quoting said or did not say what he/she is saying now. I do know the U.S. military embarked on a mission that was agreed to on the front-end, that plans change as events unfold (especially in combat), and that it is easy to play Monday morning quarterback.
“As to your question about the 35 tons which went missing under the U.N.’s watch, that is completely irrelevant to the issue that we have been discussing. I have not been mounting a defense of the U.N.’s record, but pointing out the U.S. failures in this war.”
If you think about the thrust of the argument that Bush failed to plan, and as a result, explosives have fallen into the hands of people wanting to do us harm, i.e., the terrorists. And if you couple this argument with a belief that it was a “huge mistake” to invade Iraq. Then you are left with the pre-war status quo of the U.N. in charge of Iraq
S.W. Anderson
Well, well, well, a distortion piece from a slanted Murdoch rag. Lousy source, lousy piece of work.
“Now, just before Election Day, the IAEA . . . suddenly realizes that 400 tons of phantom explosives went missing from the dump.”
Untrue. The IAEA has known the stuff was gone since 2003. The agency made requests for info about it, an investigation of sorts, to the CPA in Iraq, then started asking the Bush administration last summer. The agency’s thinking was that it was giving CPA and U.S. authorities time to figure out what happened and track down or account for the ordnance.
When that didn’t happen and when it was clear the N.Y. Times was going public with a story on it, the IAEA went public with it.
There was no “suddenly” about any of it.
willyb
The U.N.’s Revenge; WSJ; October 29, 2004; Page A14
” The United Nations appears to have cast its vote in the U.S. Presidential election this week, and it wasn’t exactly a secret ballot. It used 377 tons of high-grade Iraqi explosives to announce its opposition to re-electing George W. Bush.
At least we think that’s a fair suspicion from the oh-so-convenient timing of the story of the explosives missing from the Qaqaa munitions depot outside Baghdad. The story itself ought to be of minor import and has many oddities about it, but none more curious than the chronology of how it came to dominate the last week of this election.
On October 10, a letter from the Iraqi Ministry of Science & Technology arrived at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Vienna headquarters. The letter included a list of “high explosive materials” that “were lost” after April 9, 2003, through “the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security.” This is the ministry that worked with the IAEA before the war and it’s headed by a man who used to work for Saddam Hussein.
The Iraqi ministry was responding, in what appears to be record time, to a U.N. request. IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei attaches the Iraqi letter to his own October 25 letter to the U.N. Security Council, saying he had received it “consequent to [a] reminder” the IAEA had sent on October 1. Somehow, information that was known for many months suddenly required urgent communication to New York.
Another perplexity is the Iraqi ministry’s flat-out statement that it knew the explosives were present before April 9, 2003, the day prior to the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division’s arrival at al Qaqaa. A far more logical explanation is that Saddam removed the material before the war began. Buford Blount, who commanded the 3rd ID at the time, said yesterday that “Saddam for several months before we attacked moved most of his ammunition and explosives. … And he moved tons and tons of ammunition and distributed it throughout the cities and throughout the desert. I don’t think anyone at this point can say whether there was anything there of that magnitude.” The U.S. also has satellite photos, from March 17, 2003, showing heavy equipment working around al Qaqaa.
Such removal would not have been hard to accomplish, as an IAEA inspection report of January 14, 2003, makes only too clear: “Of note was that the sealing on the bunkers was only partially effective because each bunker had ventilation shafts on the sides of the buildings. These shafts were not sealed, and could provide removal routes for [the] HMX while leaving the front door locked.”
As for “looting,” it’s hard to see how that could have taken place without the notice of coalition forces. The Pentagon says it would have taken roughly 38 truckloads to move 380 tons of explosives — all while U.S. vehicles filled the Iraqi roadways at that time.
The IAEA informed the U.S. about the missing stockpile on October 15, noting that it was “likely to leak.” In his October 25 letter to the Security Council, Mr. ElBaradei dryly noted “the matter has been given media coverage today.” That was the day the story was first reported by the New York Times and CBS News. Mission accomplished?
Meanwhile, the Kerry campaign continues to hammer President Bush over the missing explosives, as if this is anything more than a minor mystery in the broader debate over who can best secure victory in Iraq. To put the missing 377 tons in further context: The recent Duelfer report says that the U.S. has found 405,944 tons of munitions in Iraq, of which 243,045 tons have already been destroyed.
There’s one last date worth noting: September 10. That’s the day Mr. ElBaradei announced that he would seek a third term as IAEA head. The Bush Administration believes heads of U.N. agencies should serve a maximum of two terms. It told Mr. ElBaradei when it supported him for a second term in 2001 that it would not support him for a third. A Kerry Administration might take a different view, especially after this week. “
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
Willy,
I give you credit for being (irritatingly) persistent. The substance of your argument still falls short, however.
Is there more than one way to “skin the cat”? Sure. But the cliche is rendered meaningless when you take into account that ALL SERIOUS OBSERVERS AGREE that we used too few troops. So the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz approach was WRONG, and they were clearly warned by the top military experts of their impending mistake. What part of that don’t you understand?
Given that the sanctions and UN inspections were obviously working (i.e. NO WMD’s, no reconstituted nuclear program), how do you arrive at the conclusion that the UN was “ineffective”?
Saddam posed NO direct threat to the U.S., and had NO record of attempting to supply Al-Qaeda type terrorists with weapons. If you can’t distinguish between tyrants such as Saddam and the terrorist networks which threaten us, you need to do some further research.
As to the (predictably) slanted WSJ article, which is devoid of anything meaningful to advance the story: Give me a break! I might as well listen to Scott McClellan scramble to throw the press off the scent.
I’m going to re-post a part of a Knight-Ridder article from the other day:
In a new disclosure, the senior U.S. military officer and another U.S. official, who also spoke on condition he not be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, said that an Iraqi working for U.S. intelligence alerted U.S. troops stationed near the al Qaqaa weapons facility that the installation was being looted shortly after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003.
But, they said, the troops took no apparent action to halt the pillaging.
“That was one of numerous times when Iraqis warned us that ammo dumps and other places were being looted and we weren’t able to respond because we didn’t have anyone to send,” said a senior U.S. military officer who served in Iraq.
Now, if you want to keep playing the game of saying “I don’t trust this source, I don’t trust that newspaper…”, then there’s no point in discussing these issues with you. But those few lines alone are enough to relegate the WSJ article to the trash bin. When you add the footage of the explosives (taken nine days after the fall of Baghdad), David Kay’s assessments, etc., I really don’t see how you can remain so skeptical.
A couple of further points about the WSJ article:
Who the hell cares about the timing? Even if there was some political payback for the administration having ignored the IAEA’s assessment that Iraq had not reconstituted their nuclear program (they were RIGHT, Bush & co. were WRONG), so what? The fact remains that the U.S. failed to secure a number of sensitive sites due to terrible planning and/or a lack of manpower. That is not in dispute.
The crap about the 400,000 tons of munitions has been brought up only by those administration apologists who don’t care about the truth. I’ve covered that phony issue (apples and oranges) in a previous post.
With respect to those satellite images which the administration and it’s little media helpers keep bringing up: Guess what? Those trucks were NOT outside the bunkers containing the HMX and RDX. How do I know? Follow this link:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al_qa_qaa-imagery4.htm
willyb
Bill Nye:
“Is there more than one way to “skin the cat”? Sure. But the cliche is rendered meaningless when you take into account that ALL SERIOUS OBSERVERS AGREE that we used too few troops.”
ALL SERIOUS OBSERVERS??? Do you have some source for this sweeping conclusion? Are we to gather that anyone who believes another approach to be better is not “SERIOUS”? Were any of these SERIOUS OBSERVERS members of the Joint Chiefs? How is it that some SERIOUS OBERSEVER can reach the correct conclusion based on less than all of the information available to the people that actually made the decision?
The WSJ has just as much credibility as a Knight-Ridder article which cites UNDISCLOSED sources. How convenient that nobody actually has to go on the record. While they obviously tend to lean conservative in their opinion pages, at least they aren’t making up facts and fabricating stories to suit their political beliefs and pasting this frauds on the front pages or in prime time (like the NYT and CBS News repeatedly do).
“Given that the sanctions and UN inspections were obviously working (i.e. NO WMD’s, no reconstituted nuclear program), how do you arrive at the conclusion that the UN was “ineffective”?”
The U.N. had cataloged a variety of WMD during the course of their weapons inspection regime? If they were there, and we can’t find them now, doesn’t that mean that the U.N. allowed the WMD to be transported to other countries in the region? There are books written about the U.N.’s ineffectiveness. I have given you several examples, i.e., the Oil for Food Program(the biggest financial fraud in the history of the WORLD) and leaving the explosives that we are soooo worried about in the hands of Saddam Hussein when they were asked to destroy them in the mid-1990s. Maybe you could give me one example of how the U.N. has been effective?
“The fact remains that the U.S. failed to secure a number of sensitive sites due to terrible planning and/or a lack of manpower. That is not in dispute.”
Sorry, but you have not established as a fact that any failure to secure a sensitive site was due to terrible planning or a lack of manpower.
“With respect to those satellite images which the administration and it’s little media helpers keep bringing up: Guess what? Those trucks were NOT outside the bunkers containing the HMX and RDX.”
As I
tweell
BN, I recommend a course of study. It’s called logistics. The troops need food, bullets, gas, spare parts… When the French got Turkey nix the attack from their territory, all we had for staging was Kuwait. The harbors and airports in that tiny country were running at capacity. We had enough trouble supplying the troops we had, due to their speed of advance. (You know, ‘quagmire’?)
BTW, the same logistic bottleneck (only much narrower) dictated many of our actions in Afghanistan.
tweell
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
OK Willy, let’s review:
You refuse to believe information which comes from the following sources:
The NY Times
Knight-Ridder (Which is, ironically, the ONE major American news organization which can hold it’s head high for not parroting the administration’s party line throughout this war debacle.)
ABC Television News videotape and the ABC reporters who were on the scene in Iraq.
David Kay, the principal weapons inspector assigned to Iraq by this administration.
L. Paul Bremer (“We never had enough troops on the ground.”).
And, by extension, anyone other that Sean Hannity or those who bolster your cause.
I will revise one comment: MOST serious observers…
Do YOU actually believe that we had enough troops on the ground? Or are you just “fighting the good fight”? Do you believe that those high up in the Pentagon are likely to express publicly their dismay with the way Rumsfeld & co. have run this war? After the way in which Shinseki, Clarke, O’ Neal, etc. were treated when they publicly criticized the administration? Please.
Your precious WSJ article said, in essence, that the IAEA’s timing might have been politically motivated, therefore the whole issue must be phony! It’s a pathetic attempt at misdirection. There is nothing new in the article, and certainly nothing that undermines what remains clear: The U.S. failed to secure numerous sites including Al Qaqaa (I know, David Kay, the troops in the 101st Airborne Division’s 2nd Brigade, and the ABC reporters are all lying).
You want to cling to the delusions that there were enough troops, and that Al Qaqaa was not looted after the fall of Baghdad? Be my guest. And if you pay close attention to the information which surfaces after Kerry takes office, you’ll have your “proof”.
tweell
What you cannot refute, ignore. (snicker)
Nice try, BN.
tweell
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
Tweel-
I don’t doubt for a second that it would have been logistically beneficial for the U.S. to have been able to use Turkey as a staging area.
So I suppose that when Turkey opted out, we couldn’t have delayed the invasion until the logistics were sorted out because the threat of that mushroom cloud was gathering so quickly.
Wait, perhaps it was Saddam’s responsibility for 9-11.
No, sorry, it was the imminent threat posed by Saddam’s close ties with Al Qeada and his willingness to sponsor terror.
No no, I almost forgot, it was his brutality towards his fellow citizens, coupled with that outrageous Oil for Food scandal.
Oh, and by the way, we had as many troops on the ground as Rumsfeld wanted (Turkey or no Turkey). Are you suggesting that with better logistical support we could have secured all of the sensitive sites, policed the whole country, etc. with the same number of troops?
By the way, thanks for the course recommendation!
willyb
Bill Nye:
Given ITS history, I do not give any credence to NYT. Regarding the Knight-Ridder article, my specific complaint relates to UNDISCLOSED sources. As for the rest of the media you listed (ABC, etc.), if you want to trust them, go ahead. I prefer proof that rises to a level above gossip or some “journalists'” pipe dreams.
You are the one that seems to be the one practicing misdirection. I give EVERY administration the benefit of the doubt. You are the one making allegations of mismanagement based on third-hand information.
I notice you didn’t give me an example of where the U.N. has been effective. I also noticed that you still have not presented any sort of proof that the al Qaqaa explosives were there at the start of the war, and were lost DUE TO POOR PLANNING OR A LACK OF MANPOWER. You should reread your “sources,” they offer no PROOF of your accusations.
willyb
“Do YOU actually believe that we had enough troops on the ground? Or are you just “fighting the good fight”?”
I am no expert in these matters, and if I were, I would need access to the intelligence needed to make such an assessment. What credentials do you have to make such an assessment? Did you have access to all of the intelligence?
“Do you believe that those high up in the Pentagon are likely to express publicly their dismay with the way Rumsfeld & co. have run this war?”
If the approach used by our military was so clearly flawed, what would these undisclosed sources have to fear? They would be made heros by the NYT and CBS News. While I don’t completely discount undisclosed sources, I will not use this type of “evidence” as the sole basis for a conclusion. Especially in view of the way media, like NYT and CBS News, spins facts to suit their political view.
willyb
Bill Nye:
Thought you might be interested in reading Andrew Sullivan’s endorsement of John Kerry. I was particularly interested in his comments about the United Nations….
“I know few people enthused about John Kerry. His record is undistinguished, and where it stands out, mainly regrettable. He intuitively believes that if a problem exists, it is the government’s job to fix it. He has far too much faith in international institutions, like the corrupt and feckless United Nations, in the tasks of global management. He got the Cold War wrong. He got the first Gulf War wrong. His campaign’s constant and excruciating repositioning on the war against Saddam have been disconcerting, to say the least. I completely understand those who look at this man’s record and deduce that he is simply unfit to fight a war for our survival. They have an important point — about what we know historically of his character and his judgment when this country has faced dire enemies. His scars from the Vietnam War lasted too long and have gone too deep to believe that he has clearly overcome the syndrome that fears American power rather than understands how to wield it for good.” –Andrew Sullivan, The New Republic, endorsing John Kerry
Robin Roberts
Bill, you call yourself the “science guy” but you copy ridiculous junk science like that silliness about “dirty” bombs. Kill thousands? Render “large areas” uninhabitable for months or years? Claptrap and Nonsense.
As for the “not enough troops” meme, your standards are laughable. Your evaluation of WWII would be to call FDR incompetent for allowing millions of people to die at the hands of Nazi Germany because we didn’t invade Europe for 2 1/2 years.
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
Willy,
You’re sloppy recent posts, probably due to pre-likely-to-lose-the-election-fatigue, are becoming tiresome.
If you don’t understand why those in the military are reluctant to go on record while being critical of this administration, then you simply aren’t paying the slightest attention to what has been going on.
“gossip or some “journalists'” pipe dreams.”
That’s how you characterize videotape evidence and eyewitness accounts? You really must have drunk the Kool-Aid.
” I also noticed that you still have not presented any sort of proof that the al Qaqaa explosives were there at the start of the war, and were lost DUE TO POOR PLANNING OR A LACK OF MANPOWER. You should reread your “sources,” they offer no PROOF of your accusations.”
For the last time, Willy:
David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, said he was not at all surprised at the report, which was initially revealed in Monday’s New York Times.
“Al-Qaqaa had been heavily looted in April and May,” said Kay, who left Iraq at the end of 2003 after reaching the conclusion that the country did not have weapons of mass destruction. Kay, who first visited Al-Qaqaa as a U.N. inspector in 1991, said the facility was not guarded after the U.S.-led invasion in early 2003 and was not being guarded when he left Iraq.
“The extraordinary thing would be to find a site that was really guarded,” Kay said. But, he added, the facilities were numerous and often encompassed hundreds of acres.
“There weren’t enough troops to guard the ministry buildings,” Kay said. “It’s a result of not having enough troops on the ground. And it would have been a very large number. This is not a small thing.”
That was the CHIEF WEAPONS INSPECTOR OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION stating in no uncertain terms that we failed to secure sensitive sights because there weren’t enough troops.
“If the approach used by our military was so clearly flawed, what would these undisclosed sources have to fear?”
Once again you have displayed a level of ignorance which can only be explained by the dreaded and endemic RTHOFN (Relying Too Heavily on Fox News) syndrome”.
What could they have to fear??? Just take a look at the appalling attacks leveled against every admirable public servant who dared to publicly criticize this administration. Forced early retirement (Shinseki) was the BEST case scenario.
Thanks for pointing out that Andrew Sullivan, someone I frequently look to for penetrating insights, believes that the U.N. is “corrupt and feckless”. I am not a U.N. apologist; they can and should do better. But given the utter incompetence and corruption tainting this administration, it is disgusting that Sullivan would attempt to denegrate Kerry in that manner (quite an endorsement).
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
Robin-
I see that you compensated for piping (or is that peeping?) up so late in the game by offering an exhaustive and penetrating critique of my earlier posts. Very impressive work!
I should add that I was particularly humbled by your taught, incisive WWII analogy. You must have been an invaluable member of your school’s debate team.
Bill Nye the (Political) Science Guy
Willy and the gang-
I’m off to savor the impending Kerry victory. You might want to bet a few bucks on him, as it might some of the sting out of the otherwise humbling defeat.
Thanks for sparring; perhaps we’ll do it again sometime soon.
Bill
willyb
Bill Nye:
Where in quote you attribute to David Kay does it say that the al Qaqaa explosives at issue were there at the start of the war, and were lost DUE TO POOR PLANNING OR A LACK OF MANPOWER? Do you comprehend English???? You have yet to prove the explosives were there, never mind proving that they were lost through bad planning or a lack of manpower.
“What could they have to fear??? Just take a look at the appalling attacks leveled against every admirable public servant who dared to publicly criticize this administration.”
Thats what happens to people when they introduce OPINIONS into a political process. You will note that I prefaced my “what would these undisclosed sources have to fear” comment by a qualifier: IF THE APPROACH USED BY OUR MILITARY WAS SO CLEARLY FLAWED. Obviously, what we have here is the OPINION of undisclosed sources. Sounds an awful lot like sour grapes on their part.
Since you seem to be regurgitating Democrat talking points, I assume you are a John Kerry supporter. A few more John Kerry endorsements for your reading pleasure:
“I can’t remember ever voting for anybody I disliked as much as I do John Kerry, at least not for president, but vote for him I will. I didn’t have much use for Al Gore either, but I don’t remember any real sense of hostility before punching the hole next to his name…. I can’t persuade anybody to vote for a candidate for whom I can muster so little enthusiasm, but there must be an awful lot of people out there who are going to cast votes next week for Kerry who are, like me, discouraged by the prospect and needing one of those you-are-not-alone talks.” –Mark Brown, Chicago Sun-Times, endorsing John Kerry
“I remain totally unimpressed by John Kerry. Outside of his opposition to the death penalty, I’ve never seen him demonstrate any real political courage. His baby steps in the direction of reform liberalism during the 1990s were all followed by hasty retreats. His Senate vote against the 1991 Gulf War demonstrates an instinctive aversion to the use of American force, even when it’s clearly justified. Kerry’s major policy proposals in this campaign range from implausible to ill-conceived. He has no real idea what to do differently in Iraq. His health-care plan costs too much to be practical and conflicts with his commitment to reducing the deficit. At a personal level, he strikes me as the kind of windbag that can only emerge when a naturally pompous and self-regarding person marinates for two decades inside the U.S. Senate. If elected, Kerry would probably be a mediocre, unloved president on the order of Jimmy Carter.” –Jacob Weisberg, Slate, endorsing John Kerry