If you have ceased all reading of non-amateur reporting it will be of no interest to you to click over to the Christian Science Monitor's web site and its excellent canvassing of a large number of media outlets on this story about the missing 380 tons of explosives. Those both in pajamas and in the know certainly know that it had nothing to do with the Rumsfeld plan to invade Iraq with the least resources possible. The CSM round-up includes this interesting juxaposition:
The BBC points out two seemingly contradictory reports from NBC.Some actual facts that are interesting include these:NBC television reported that one of its correspondents was embedded with the 101st Airborne Division which temporarily took control of the base on 10 April 2003 but did not find any of the explosives.The White House pointed to the NBC television report Monday as evidence the explosives may have disappeared before the war or before US troops arrived at the site, reports AP.However, other US outlets, including NBC's own news website, quoted Pentagon officials who said a search of the site after the US-led invasion had revealed the explosives to be intact.
IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003 when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers. The same AP report points out that Ms. Fleming said inspectors visited the site again in March 2003, but didn't view the explosives because the seals were not broken.We know from the first Gulf War that the British SAS were on the ground weeks before the invasion of Kuwait desert rat style, securing what needed securing. Surely they were up to the same thing this time. We also know that the US and UK had Iraq coated in surveillance planes right up to the mid-March and - surely to God - they must have had one plane dedicated to this spot.
So when did the locked up munitions go missing? When exactly was it that no one was looking?
Now, INDC points out as a fact that there was a million tons of ordinance floating around - though the story cited for that fact actually speaks of something a litle different ammunition (bullets to rockets) as opposed to a pure large playdough-like glob of elemental BOOM!!! So, given that, who cares about the odd 380 tons of easy-to-use easy-to-mould easy-to-hide explosive. Hmm...who might...hmm...not US soldiers on the ground...and certainly not insurgents. Let it go. Keep moving. I note that the Commissar is silent on the tale.
Later: ...and just like that the Commissar waits and waits - then jumps in with facts. Excellent work, Tovarich.

Comments
Ben - October 27, 2004 12:37 AM
Here's the real October surprise -- seven straight play-off wins?! Red Sox up 3-0 in the World Series? Whoa.
portland - October 27, 2004 1:04 AM
this entry is muddled. say what you mean. whoa.
Mike - October 27, 2004 1:23 PM
It's the low blood sugar.
Alan - October 27, 2004 4:31 PM
...need...jelly...donut...
Alan - October 27, 2004 7:25 PM
Revived.<p>It is quite funny how this is actually a debate between the Iraqi administration and the US administration but the Bush administration makes it something about Kerry.<p>I am really with Cheney, pointing fingers at Kerry.<p><i>GRRRRRR</i>. Down, Dick! Down!
Alan - October 28, 2004 8:57 AM
INDC may have the answer - it was the Ruskies.
Alan - October 29, 2004 8:58 AM
Now Rummy admits they were watching from the sky as the trucks loaded up. But apparently they did not keep looking at them to see where they were going. Because you know if they are planning a war in two days and they know 380 tons of hidely useful plastic explosives are being moved from site "X" to someplace as yet unknown, it would be an unnessesary governmental expense according to the Chicago school of war and economics to actually watch to see where they go.
Alan - October 29, 2004 5:38 PM
So now Rummy was watching trucks in the sky <i>and</i> it was the Russians <i>and</i> the USA unloaded the building a few days later. I hope that is all clear. And it is Kerry's fault.