October 25, 2004, A TRUE October Surprise?
What's most surprising about this story of Bush incompetence in not guarding weapons in Iraq, summarized here by dog run member Josh Marshall (via Julia writing in The American Street where you can read some of my own musings about our legal system on Mondays, along with a nice smattering of some of the best damned writers in blogdom...) is not that it took so long to come out at all, but that the Bushmen couldn't suppress it completely with just over a week to go until the election.
The story, of course, is of over just how 350 tons of incredibly powerful explosive that "disappeared" from a facility kept under close watch by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, the agency headed by Mohammed El-Baradei, and one of the agencies tossed out of Iraq so Dubya could show the world that his was bigger than Papa Bush's). The IAEA did not remove the weapons grade explosives because, although they are really nasty and can be used as the triggering mechanism in atomic bombs, they also have useful and legitimate civilian applications in excavations for dams and bridges and other large problems. So... they were kept under close watch by the IAEA.
Until, of course, the United States military moved in, and threw out the inspectors, and apparently, not only left a facility at al Qa Qaa, Iraq (I think that's the name) unguarded, but then suppressed all information about having left it unguarded, apparently under pain of death for any American or Iraqi who dared talk about it. Result: over 350 tons of the nastiest conventional explosives on Earth went right into the hands of terrorists, and, as alluded to by Senator Kerry in the debates, are being used for car bombs and other devices used to kill our soldiers and the nascent Iraqi security force, as well as lotsa civilians. Got it? (We won't even talk about the possibility of even nastier weapons at these facilities also having disappeared... into the hands of terrorists.)
Our government's justification is that there were so many explosives floating around Iraq from other places, they couldn't guard them all-- so what difference does it make if they didn't gaurd any. Got that? This is our "strong, decisive, resolved" government. We went into Iraq to keep bad shit out of the hands of terrorists, and by our actions, not only placed them IN the hands of terrorists, but deliberately suppressed any and all information on the subject, thereby ensuring that the situation couldn't be corrected.
The only thing that amazes me is that this story came out at all; the Bushmen had done an excellent job suppressing it for so long. We're 8 days from the election, for Gawd sake. If there ARE any undecideds left, this should make up their mind for them.
Comments
All that, and your boy Kerry still can't get a foothold.
Posted by They Call Me Mr. Crabcake at October 25, 2004 12:30 PM
You'll be saying that well into John Kerry's second term, Crabby. While Kerry fails "the global test" of a likeable personality (or even running a half decent campaign), the perspective that we are in graver mortal danger under his governance than that of the current Gang that Can't Shoot Straight has now been shattered. Red Sox in 6. Kerry by 3 1/2 in the popular, and an electoral college margin of 30-40 e.v.'s. (Cut to champagne corks popping in St. Louis and Crawford, Texas.)
Kerry had some luck here: the attack on his Vietnam record came WAY TOO EARLY. The attack on Bush's Iraq record comes... a week before the election? Bad timing for the POTUS. Bad.
Posted by the talking dog at October 25, 2004 12:40 PM
Sounds like you already drank too much of that champagne, Yaz.
Posted by They Call Me Mr. Crabcake at October 25, 2004 2:23 PM
I love the “we can’t let the terrorists know they’ve stolen some explosives” reason for not letting America know the explosives had been stolen. See, since we are the only source for truth and knowledge, if we don’t tell the terrorists something, they’ll never know it...
Posted by Andrew Cory at October 25, 2004 5:08 PM
Andrew--
There you go again with "reality". Didn't you get the memo on "We create OUR OWN reality?" All that matters is what WE SAY happened; not what happened. See-- if the terrorists don't see their own actions confirmed on American television by the Bush Administration, then those actions never took place in the first place. Kapeesh?
As I said: the tight spin and omerta discipline of the Bushmen is falling apart at a most inopportune time.
Posted by the talking dog at October 25, 2004 5:11 PM
I think that Bush has made serious enemies in the military and intelligence heierarchies, including people who are still working for him.
I think that the SBV attack came way to early because Rove was already worried. And I think that the polls are undercounting Kerry a lot. Failing a more successful Rove dump of final-week slime, and failing an effective October Surprise, and failing massive election fraud......
In some ideal universe, Kerry would be on the road to a decisive win.
No, 30 years ago I was not planning on ever working to help save that nice CIA from the mean old President.
Posted by Zizka at October 25, 2004 7:28 PM
Speaking of Reality-based, I’ve made “a proud member of the reality-based community” my blog’s official description. I’ve noticed a few other sites do this as well. Any chance you’ll join us?
Posted by Andrew Cory at October 25, 2004 8:10 PM
I'm not sure the Swift Boat movement came too early. Had it come in after the debates, it would have been a lot harder for Bush to establish credible distance from them, which he somehow did with the absurd "I'm against all 527s" position. I don't put much past our media in terms of falling for stupid shit, but it's hard to imagine that they would have given those guys anywhere near as much attention, and with so little commentary on the obvious ties wiht the Bush campaign, if SBVFT had been the "October surprise." Using them just after the Dem convention, with the unusually long time in between the conventions we had this year, was possibly the ideal time for Rove to deploy them.
Posted by Haggai at October 25, 2004 8:47 PM
Dear Mr. TD:
I think you are going to be dreadfully disappointed next week as the dust settles from the results of the election. I recommend some thought into why Kerry lost. In fact, take a head start and start posting about Kerry's loss now. The thing about toys is that kids want to play with them. Nobody wants to play with Kerry, so he goes back in the box in a week.
Posted by Big Box Fella at October 26, 2004 11:16 AM
When Kerry was a kid, they had to tie a pork chop around his neck to get the dog to play with him.
Posted by They Call Me Mr. Crabcake at October 26, 2004 1:54 PM
When Kerry was a kid, they had to tie a pork chop around his neck to get the dog to play with him.
Posted by They Call Me Mr. Crabcake at October 26, 2004 1:54 PM
If there are still any undecideds out there, they should have their voting privileges revoked on the grounds of severe political retardation--or living on another planet.
Posted by Sarah at October 26, 2004 6:49 PM
Well Qa Qaa Breath,
It would appear that the 350 tons of explosives were gone when the 101st Airborne arrived there on April 9, 2003.
Nice timing for the press release by the the ABB Kerry Campaign, though. What's next, a DWI arrest? Oh wait, we used that one already.
Posted by They Call Me Mr. Crabcake at October 26, 2004 7:54 PM
Crabcake:
Wrong again. The explosives WERE THERE when the UN IAEA sealed them on March 5, 2003. To remove them would have required a FLEET OF NOT LESS THAN 40 TRUCKS, at a time when THAT SITE was under constant (1) satellite and (2) overhead flight surveillance.
You see, Saddam moving his WMD arsenal (which WE believed that was) at that very moment WOULD HAVE BEEN OBSERVED BY OUR MILITARY, who would have had standing orders to bomb the shit out of that fleet of trucks.
No such bombing mission occurred, because no such fleet of trucks arrived.
So I call bullshit: the army had no fucking idea what was there when they rolled in in April; they were too busy shooting everyone that moved.
This shit fell into the hands of terrorists because we didn't make provision to guard the site.
Next piece of easily debunked propaganda you'd like to put forth?
Posted by the talking dog at October 27, 2004 1:09 PM
So you're saying that a fleet of 40 trucks that would have been easily observed by a far flung satellite was overlooked by a battallion of troops on site, on the ground.
Uh, OK.
Thanks for the debunking.
Posted by They Call Me Mr. Crabcake at October 27, 2004 3:28 PM
The batallion of troops wasn't on site... at least not long enough to inventory hundreds of tons of shit on over 9 square miles. (That part was the, ahem, BUNK!!!)
Oh wait-- I forgot. Our military (and especially its commander in chief) would NEVER, EVER LIE about something embarassing.
Posted by the talking dog at October 27, 2004 3:35 PM