Lets see.  High Explosives that were regulated by the international atomic regulations agency.  I wonder what these were going to be used for???  Fireworks?

Jesus Christ I'm not reading all that... anybody got a cliff notes version?

Do we KNOW it disappeared AFTER the invasion and couldn't have been moved BEFORE the invasion?

Exactly, the president does not micromanage the battlefield... that is what generals and other senior officers are for.  As for a cover-up, they better have something to base this on.  And Kerry harped on this during the debates, this is nothing we don't know.  Hell, the UN inspectors should have removed this stuff long before the invasion during the inspections... if it was under seal the Iraqis were not using it for mining or commercial purposes, it wasn't getting used period.  No reason for it to have been there, unlss the Iraqis somehow bribed the UN... you know, *cough cough* oil for food...

Quoted: Quoted: I don't know why this would be bad for President Bush.   Solely based on "the buck stops here" theory.  He's in charge.

I've grown so tired of this buck stops here mentality... the buck stops with someone who has the ability to effect a change or control the outcome or whose decision results in the outcome.  Fact of the matter is thousands of decisions are made by commanders in Iraq every day, some are mundane... some are wildly successful and some are catastrophic.  The bottom line is a general with more than two decades in service and with the experience is in a better position to make these decisions.  Vietnam is what happens when politicians decide to second guess and mincro-manage.  Now should whatever officer who made that decision face discipline... yes.  But should any American expect the president to be asking every question and trying to direct the battlefield and troop allocations?  Fuck no.

I ask again, why did the UN leave the explosives there if they knew they were dual use and they were "preventing" the Iraqis from using the explosives by placing them under seal even though there was nobody in place to ensure that they were not used?

Problem is Kerry telegraphed this a month ago... it didn't sting much then, it won't much now.  You'll hear an outcry, but its not a personal scandal... it is a military failure.  I just don;t see this being a death blow... its going to sting, but its not devastating.  Would have been more effective from a paper without a long-standing anti-Bush bias.  If the Wall Street Journal reported this it would be lights out.  However this might well force Rove to fire his body blow which I think they wished to avoid using as they are a double edged sword.

www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html?hp&ex=1098676800&en=61cf6e1aa29b7871&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Link to the NY Times Story on this

OK well I just read the article... appears two of ten bunkers were destroyed by our bombers before the land war.  So 20% of the stockpile is thus gone.  When our troops swept through they found no munitions under IAEA seal... meaning they were gone before they could have been secured.  Any chance this might have been what was on those trucks to Syria... or moved elsewhere?  Grabted, the facility was not secured but the CIA ranked it a medium priority site and our troops found no sealed sites... which means to me relocation.  I don't see this as overly-damaging.  Its a lot of speculation as to where the explosives are and gives no proof it has fallen into terrorist hands or has yet been used...  You'd think if they had it they would be using it.