Tuesday, October 26, 2004
The New York Times and the missing explosives
Yesterday, the NYT ran on its front page this story, which strongly implied that 380 tons of high explosives disappeared from an Iraqi arms depot that should have been under American guard. Andrew immediately jumped ugly ("criminal negligence"), the Kerry campaign waxed indignant, and, according to Fox this morning, somebody littered the driveways of non-subscribing Floridians with copies of the Times. This morning, the Times broke its shoulder patting itself on the back for outing a "campaign issue."
The only problem is that the vast proponderance of the evidence indicates that the high explosives disappeared before American soldiers got there. I was going to write an extensive, link-rich evisceration of The New York Times and call on Andrew Sullivan to repeal his own indignation, but Rob A. has already done the work. Go here, work your way through the links bearing in mind that this story broke between the publication of the two Times articles, and then ask yourself why anybody should ever believe thatbird-cage liner newspaper.
UPDATE (11:20 am): CNN:
Heh.
UPDATE (12:30 pm): Andrew digs in. He claims the evidence still points in the direction of American negligence (citing Talking Points Memo, which does make some powerful arguments in support of the Times account), but will retract "if the facts change."
I look at this a little differently. There is no strong evidence that the material was looted after the end of major combat operations against Iraq's conventional military. The Left would like for Bush to be responsible for all munitions after the first moment that American troops crossed into Iraq, or the first date that American soldiers passed through the facility in question. But is that reasonable? The argument that we needed to guard all found munitions at all times seems like a smart one in retrospect, but winning the conventional war must have appeared to be the greater priority at the time. In retrospect, we know that Saddam planned to defend in depth via guerrilla actions, and that he dispersed most of his weapons long before American soldiers got there. Had we known then what we know now, we probably would have taken greater care to secure explosives as we tore through to Baghdad. But what actually are the consequences? The explosives at issue, if they are in fact "in play," amount to a few hundred tons in a country with more than 600,000 tons of munitions before the war. We have secured more than 400,000 tons, but there are still staggering quantities that are unaccounted for, and undoubtedly in the hands ofinsurgents terrorists. For the Times to act as though a few hundred tons, more or less, is "new news" is at best disingenuous.
This incident is at best incremental evidence that we should have invaded with a bigger army. Maybe, but that is hardly a new controversy.
Final Update (unless it isn't, 7:30 am Chicago time, October 27): Wretchard drives a stake through the NYT's story.
The only problem is that the vast proponderance of the evidence indicates that the high explosives disappeared before American soldiers got there. I was going to write an extensive, link-rich evisceration of The New York Times and call on Andrew Sullivan to repeal his own indignation, but Rob A. has already done the work. Go here, work your way through the links bearing in mind that this story broke between the publication of the two Times articles, and then ask yourself why anybody should ever believe that
UPDATE (11:20 am): CNN:
"In a shameless attempt to cover up its failure to secure 380 tons of highly explosive material in Iraq, the White House is desperately flailing in an effort to escape blame," Lockhart said. "It is the latest pathetic excuse from an administration that never admits a mistake, no matter how disastrous."
Lockhart did not elaborate on how the Bush campaign was distorting the NBC report.
Heh.
UPDATE (12:30 pm): Andrew digs in. He claims the evidence still points in the direction of American negligence (citing Talking Points Memo, which does make some powerful arguments in support of the Times account), but will retract "if the facts change."
I look at this a little differently. There is no strong evidence that the material was looted after the end of major combat operations against Iraq's conventional military. The Left would like for Bush to be responsible for all munitions after the first moment that American troops crossed into Iraq, or the first date that American soldiers passed through the facility in question. But is that reasonable? The argument that we needed to guard all found munitions at all times seems like a smart one in retrospect, but winning the conventional war must have appeared to be the greater priority at the time. In retrospect, we know that Saddam planned to defend in depth via guerrilla actions, and that he dispersed most of his weapons long before American soldiers got there. Had we known then what we know now, we probably would have taken greater care to secure explosives as we tore through to Baghdad. But what actually are the consequences? The explosives at issue, if they are in fact "in play," amount to a few hundred tons in a country with more than 600,000 tons of munitions before the war. We have secured more than 400,000 tons, but there are still staggering quantities that are unaccounted for, and undoubtedly in the hands of
This incident is at best incremental evidence that we should have invaded with a bigger army. Maybe, but that is hardly a new controversy.
Final Update (unless it isn't, 7:30 am Chicago time, October 27): Wretchard drives a stake through the NYT's story.
0 Comments:
