BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Explosives

23 comments on Explosives

Explosives

: The biggest lesson of our new news world is that news doesn’t end when it’s printed or aired. That’s when it begins. That’s when we hear other evidence and questions and perspective. News takes time.

So deciding to come out with the “missing” explosives story so close to the election borders on the obviously irresponsible, for there is no way that we are going to get perspective, let alone truth, on this in such a short time. So half-truths end up affected the election.

That’s why it was particularly irresponsible for 60 Minutes to plan to release this story two days before the election. But even a week before does not give enough time to figure out what happened and what matters.

Today, we have video showing explosives in the bunkers. We have pictures of trucks at the bunkers. And we have the Washington Post essentially saying that the “missing” explosives are a nonstory because we’ve known that lots of explosions have been missing.

The 377 tons of Iraqi explosives whose reported disappearance has dominated the past few days of presidential campaigning represent only a tiny fraction of the vast quantities of other munitions unaccounted for since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s government 18 months ago….

Against that background, this week’s assertions by Sen. John F. Kerry’s campaign about the few hundred tons said to have vanished from Iraq’s Qaqaa facility have struck some defense experts as exaggerated.

“There is something truly absurd about focusing on 377 tons of rather ordinary explosives, regardless of what actually happened at al Qaqaa,” Anthony H. Cordesman, a senior analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote in an assessment yesterday. “The munitions at al Qaqaa were at most around 0.06 percent of the total.”

Retired Army Gen. Wayne A. Downing, who served briefly as President Bush’s adviser on counterterrorism and has criticized some aspects of the administration’s performance, said yesterday he considered the missing-explosives issue “bogus.”

The real issue is whether the “insurgency” was adequately anticipated, whether stray weapons would be used against us, and whether we had enough troops. But that’s not a story of one weapons dump. That’s a bigger story that has already been covered.

Again, the real story here is the story of this story.

23 responses to “Explosives”

  1. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    So deciding to come out with the “missing” explosives story so close to the election borders on the obviously irresponsible, for there is no way that we are going to get perspective, let alone truth, on this in such a short time. So half-truths end up affected the election.
    Agreeing that most stories develop over time, that’s a news outlet to do? Stop printing 5 days before an election? 10 days? 30 days? That’s irresponsible. Give people some credit to be able to decide for themselves if a story is “complete” or “true.”
    The real issue is whether the “insurgency” was adequately anticipated, whether stray weapons would be used against us, and whether we had enough troops. But that’s not a story of one weapons dump. That’s a bigger story that has already been covered.
    No, that’s a story that continues to be covered, and should continue to be covered. This is new information, and part of the process of getting into the details and understanding what really happened is to publish what we know now, and see what new information then emerges (see above).

  2. dick Avatar
    dick

    I think Michael is dead wrong on this one. Yes, the story should be covered. No question about that. The question is not whether the story should be covered but whether it should be used, as this one is being used, as a campaign tool without complete truth being possible between now and the election. People are used to getting their news from the MSM and believing it unless they are internet users. For a campaign, and given that the Kerry camp had an ad out with the story by early the next morning which implies that they were aware of the story in time to create the ad, to use news of this sort as a campaign ploy is totally irresponsible. That the MSM would allow the campaign access to the story in time to get an ad created in that span of time is also totally irresponsible. If the story had been released a month ago, fine. Both sides would be able to respond and the news media would be able to fully examine the story and ascertain its truth or falsity. That would be responsible. The handling of this one was not.

  3. Angelos Avatar
    Angelos

    This is a very important story. Just because the election is Tuesday doesn’t mean we should bury it.
    That would be the Republican strategy actually. Have the RNC Chair send letters to media outlets, accusing them of bias for reporting news.
    If we find out tomorrow that W went off his meds and dismembered Laura with a butter knife, the RNC would try to suppress media converage until after the Tuesday, so as to not influence the election with “sensationalistic” stories.
    The Al Qaaqa, as it has unfolded, represents the Bush administration in a nutshell.
    News breaks, evidence of more screw-ups. First spin arrives, quickly debunked. More converage and debate. 2nd story from the admin, debunked even more quickly. 3rd story, now getting truly pathetic. By now, there is actual video footage from the bunkers, showing the IAEA labels, the HMX powder in barrels, in a bunker that was unlocked and opened by US Troops, after the invasion. Oh yeah, the Russians took it. Um, no.
    The next step, obviously, is to trot Guliani out to blame the troops.
    People need to see this.

  4. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    “If the story had been released a month ago, fine. Both sides would be able to respond and the news media would be able to fully examine the story and ascertain its truth or falsity”
    Honestly, I must have missed the evidence that the news media had this story and held it until now. Are there claims that they actually timed the release? If not, then you can’t ask media to not publish something becuase it might have an impact – that’s the WHOLE POINT of our media system – to provide information, to create discourse, to affect people’s thinking, etc.

  5. Richard Aubrey Avatar
    Richard Aubrey

    The media had the story in time to run it (NYT) when it ran. Otherwise they couldn’t have run it. Clear?
    The point is that both the NYT and CBS HAD PLANNED TO HOLD IT until the weekend.
    Due to pressure from leaks, the NYT decided to get aboard and ran it earlier than they HAD PLANNED.
    Whether they had enough to run it earlier even than that is a different question.
    As my sainted mother used to say, “It’s the thought that counts, dear.” And we can surely see the thought here.
    Worse, the story shouldn’t have been run anyway, or not as if it were some apocalyptic issue.
    Considering the amount of stuff lying around, this is chump change. Considering the questions available at the time the story ran, there was no excuse for implying the administration was at fault. Not to mention asserting that the story was absolutely true.
    This is an unnecessary story in terms of understanding the war. It’s like saying the umpty-umpth Motor Company had to install some new portapotties. Sure, it happened. So what?
    When an unnecessary story is hauled onto the front page with all the DNC-kissing pundits pontificating about it before the ink is dry, it’s not news, it’s a hit piece.

  6. Dishman Avatar
    Dishman

    As I understand it, they’d been essentially sitting on this one for a week. It’s the idea of sitting on a story until it’s too close to the election to digest or debunk that offends me.

  7. alkali Avatar
    alkali

    Do you realize that CBS has shown 60 Minutes exactly two days before every federal election for the past 30 years? What are the odds? Conspiracy, I say!

  8. Richard Aubrey Avatar
    Richard Aubrey

    Alkali, are you aware that 60 mins is part of CBS?
    That CBS could have decided to have Rather run it? (Perhaps they think nobody would believe him.) Or their morning show. Or some other time.
    Sixty Minutes is not an independent entity. Other parts of the news division could have run it if there had not been a decision to sit on it.
    You don’t know, for example, if they could have run it on the previous Sunday. Did they have it together then? Let’s say they did, just for grins. New attitude?

  9. Blueprint Avatar
    Blueprint

    Excuse me, but if I get blown apart by .06 of the total munitions our invasion of Iraq dropped like manna into the hands of the terrorists, there will be just as few pieces left of me as any other amount.
    What this episode definitively shows is a total lack of understanding of what the nature of the invasion of Iraq was, by the administration that put it into action. It was a week’s worth of brouhaha to them, and we are going to be paying for their incompetence for a long time to come, in many ways.
    No matter what the reasons are for this story appearing now, it is certainly one that ought to be out before the election. Unlike the denouement of the 9/11 report, the administration’s medicare prescription benefits’ real effects (2006), the costs of our invasion, any number of administration stories on hold until after the election. The MSM has a real edge on honorable intentions over the administration.

  10. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    Was it irresponsible for ABC to air a tape of an “America AlQueda” issuing threats less than a week before the election – even if they (nor the FBI) can confirm that it is authentic?

  11. h0mi Avatar
    h0mi

    Agreeing that most stories develop over time, that’s a news outlet to do? Stop printing 5 days before an election? 10 days? 30 days? That’s irresponsible. Give people some credit to be able to decide for themselves if a story is “complete” or “true.”

    I’d say it depends on the story. This story is about an event that took place 18 months ago and nothing has been uncovered in the last week to suggest there are any “new” developments about it; we didn’t have an occurrance where the materials surfaced in a raid of a building, we didn’t intercept a truck or a ship containing the materials… this was simply a rehashing of the original events, with a hashing of what did or did not happen in the ~6 weeks in question. The only new news involves various claims of people saying what did or did not happen back then, but I see nothing in the way of new “news” to justify the way this story has been reported on. If this is such an important story, why was it not reported on/about a year ago? 3 months ago? Last April/May? Why has there been no updates on this until now?

    Was it irresponsible for ABC to air a tape of an “America AlQueda” issuing threats less than a week before the election – even if they (nor the FBI) can confirm that it is authentic?

    Was the tape made in January 2004? June 2004? October 2003? May 2003?

  12. The Lonewacko Blog Avatar
    The Lonewacko Blog

    Question for Anthony H. Cordesman: what happened to the remaining 99.94% of Iraq’s arsenal?
    Iraq had the fourth largest arsenal in the world.
    We’ve accounted for somewhere between 20% and 40% of it. Where’s the rest of it? Who has it? Who got Iraq’s nuclear equipment?
    That’s going to be the big story of 2005, perhaps even leading to serious talk of impeachment.

  13. The Lonewacko Blog Avatar
    The Lonewacko Blog

    Let me revise the last sentence:
    “That’s going to be the big story of 2005. If Bush wins, which I think is looking less likely every day, it might even lead to serious talk of impeachment.”

  14. John Anderson Avatar
    John Anderson

    10.27.2004 ?RDX never at alQQ? And never sealed?
    10.29.2004 Search google for “Mahaweel” – http://www.dailyherald.com/news_story.asp?intid=38289156 is the only one in the US to include this?!??
    .
    IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming interview on ABC (Australia) – “IAEA inspectors visited Al-Mahaweel on Jan. 15, 2003, and verified the RDX inventory by weighing sampling,” Fleming said. She said the RDX at Al-Mahaweel was not under seal [emphasis added – JSA] but was subject to IAEA monitoring.”
    Al-Mahaweel?
    “The bulk of the RDX was stored at another site that was under Al Qaqaa’s jurisdiction,” IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said.
    She says that the report seen by ABC only covers the Al Qaqaa site itself.
    The second site, Al Mahaweel, is roughly 45 kilometres from Al Qaqaa.
    Well, so much for about 140 of the 372 tons? Or what?
    10.29.2004 3ID says “I did not see any IAEA seals at any of the locations we went into,” Maj. Austin Pearson said.

  15. penheaded Avatar
    penheaded

    Jeff takes an entirely too blogocentric view of the importance of this story. To say that the story of the shortfalls of Shrub’s military planning has already been covered is cutting off discussion way too early. I will agree that as a matter of inside baseball this story also has legs.
    Drudge and the rest of the usual suspects lined up to call this just more liberal MSM hacking. The facts didn’t bear them out. Powerline and all of the apologists helped make this story so very dramatic. They trotted out the big, loud guns of the standard response and within about four days had video proof that Shrub really had no cover on this one. Unless you believe Rudy saying it was the troops’ fault.

  16. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    “If this is such an important story, why was it not reported on/about a year ago? 3 months ago? Last April/May? Why has there been no updates on this until now?”
    I thought the reason was becuase the letter that was sent from Iraq to the UN group only went out Oct. 10th. Am I wrong? How else would the news media have known about this?

  17. Steve Rhodes Avatar
    Steve Rhodes

    It would be nice if the networks had done documentaries as comprehensive as Rumsfeld’s War on Frontline (which is online at pbs.org/frontline), but they weren’t devoting 90 seconds to an examination of the planning (or lack of) and aftermath of the war let alone 90 minutes.
    The explosives has been a way to crystalize the massive mistakes Bush made. It is an important story which should be covered.

  18. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    Mr. Rhodes, that’s a really sound observation.
    When the newspeople who were ‘imbedded’ were thought to be controlled, some one forgot to give orders to the troops to take over Iraq with responsible methods, including security for the land and its resources, oh pardon me, did I forget oil? Museums, nuclear weapons, indigenous populace, oh, sorry, those weren’t really on the planning boards. Does anyone else feel repulsed by the report that 100,000 Iraqis more than necessary were killed. I hate it that Americans die daily for a big fraud, but more Iraqis are paying with their lives for our incredible stupidity. In the early 1900’s it was the British and called the “white man’s burden”. We need to GROW UP. The world counts.

  19. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    Oh, and to those bloggers pointing out there is disagreement with the 100,000 figure: we’re talking human beings who had no fight with America. The figures aren’t the important thing, the lives lost are.

  20. Mr. D Avatar
    Mr. D

    Politically speaking, the 377 tons story is now a coffin somewhere at the bottom of a mountain of nails. Give it up, Mr. Kerry.

  21. Richard Aubrey Avatar
    Richard Aubrey

    Yeah, Ruth. We know. This is not a bit of knowledge vouchsafed to you alone.
    What’s your point?

  22. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    That’s funny, Mr. Aubrey. You’re so sensitive, you wanted to be insulting?
    Don’t need to show you the point. It was in my post.

  23. Richard Aubrey Avatar
    Richard Aubrey

    Ruth, your point is…..?
    People die in war.
    We know that.
    What point are you trying to make?
    I will address one of your implications. Once you’ve been told that the number (not “our” numbers) was wrong, you rowed back, to use the delightful media term for when they get caught screwing the pooch, to saying that some innocents dead is still bad.
    Well, we know that, too.
    But if some is bad, more is worse and less is better.
    But, anyway, what were you trying to say by pointing out that people are dying in this war?