Political Forecast

Pentagon spokesperson Larry DiRita held a press conference this afternoon with Major Austin Pearson, assigned to the 101st Airborne Division to inspect bunkers at al Qaqaa on April 13.

Pearson made the claim that they removed around 200 tons of amunition and other explosives that day and searched multiple bunkers, but never saw the IAEA seal on any of the explosives there. What this means is that they did not remove any of the 377 tons of explosives that the IAEA had marked prior to the US invasion.

Fox News has the story (unfortunately it is the only site with it up right now) and is already spinning it as the DoD wants it put out there–that there still isn’t enough information to make any claims at all. The Pentagon is continually putting forth any story that can somehow exonerate the White House, or at least do what Rudy Guillian did and blame the troops.

From the story:

“The Pentagon believes the disclosure helps explain what happened to 377 tons of high explosives that the International Atomic Energy Agency said disappeared after the U.S.-led invasion.

Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita acknowledged the Defense Department did not have all the answers and could not yet account for all of the missing explosives, but stressed that the major’s disclosure was a significant development in unraveling the mystery.”

However, Maj. Pearson’s report seems like a dandy tool from the DoD to try and manipulate the news cycle on this particular issue. KSTP in Minnesota has footage and photos from April 18 clearly showing the IAEA seal at al Qaqaa in Iraq. Clearly what we are seeing is the amount of information lacking in this particular area and the conflicting reports from the government and what is continually being uncovered by journalists acros the country and the world.

Numerous international officials (from the IAEA and from Iraq) have said that it was IMPOSSIBLE to remove that amount of weapons prior to the war and the fall of Baghdad without it becoming clearly evident in satellite imagery from the United States.And clearly since the IAEA seal was not on anything the major’s unit removed (according to him) 337 tons of HMX and RDX are still missing in Iraq.

For more coverage, check out Juan Cole and the Talking Points Memo.

Last night on the Drudge Report, the conservative spin began on an NBC News report that on the way to Baghdad, the 101st Airborne Division stoped at al Qaqaa and found no explosives, according to the embedded NBC team.

This report from NBC never made it on the company’s news website, MSNBC.com, but Drudge and conservatives continued to spin it as proof that the weapons went missing prior to the US invasion. It finally made the front page of CNN.com during the middle of the night and was up for most of the day, until late evening or so.

However, this conflicted with a multitude of reports from those interviewed in the Times and other reports from the IAEA. The Talking Points Memo pointed this out as well last night and today.

Finally, NBC did a follow up to the segment from Monday night today on MSNBC where they explained that the time at al Qaqaa was a mere “pit stop.” Here is what the report said (from TPM, emphasis their’s):

“Following up on that story from last night, military officials tell NBC News that on April 10, 2003, when the Second Brigade of the 101st Airborne entered the Al QaQaa weapons facility, south of Baghdad, that those troops were actually on their way to Baghdad, that they were not actively involved in the search for any weapons, including the high explosives, HMX and RDX. The troops did observe stock piles of conventional weapons but no HMX or RDX. And because the Al Qaqaa facility is so huge, it’s not clear that those troops from the 101st were actually anywhere near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX. Three months earlier, during an inspection of the Al Qaqaa compound, the International Atomic Energy Agency secured and sealed 350 metric tons of HMX and RDX. Then in March, shortly before the war began, the I.A.E.A. conducted another inspection and found that the HMX stockpile was still intact and still under seal. But inspectors were unable to inspect the RDX stockpile and could not verify that the RDX was still at the compound.

Pentagon officials say elements of the 101st airborne did conduct a thorough search of several facilities around the Al QaQaa compound for several weeks during the month of April in search of WMD. They found no WMD. And Pentagon officials say it’s not clear at that time whether those other elements of the 101st actually searched the Al QaQaa compound.

Now, Pentagon officials say U.S. troops and members of the Iraq Survey Group did arrive at the Al QaQaa compound on May 27. And when they did, they found no HMX or RDX or any other weapons under seal at the time. Now, the Iraqi government is officially said that the high explosives were stolen by looters. Pentagon officials claim it’s possible — they’re not sure, they say, but it’s possible that Saddam Hussein himself ordered that these high explosives be removed and hidden before the war. What is clear is that the 350 metric tons of high explosives are still missing, and that the U.S. or Iraqi governments or international inspectors, for that matter, cannot say with any certainty where they are today.”

The division stayed there for less than 24 hours, and inspected a few buildings, definitely not inspecting the entire compound.

Now the New York Times is publishing a story tomorrow confirming all of this and explaining how the administration is now calling it a “mystery” how the explosives disappeared.

“White House officials reasserted yesterday that 380 tons of powerful explosives may have disappeared from a vast Iraqi military complex while Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq, saying a brigade of American soldiers did not find the explosives when they visited the complex on April 10, 2003, the day after Baghdad fell.

But the unit’s commander said in an interview yesterday that his troops had not searched the facility and had merely stopped there for the night on their way to Baghdad.”

And then this:

“President Bush’s aides told reporters that because the soldiers had found no trace of the missing explosives on April 10, the explosives could have been removed before the American invasion. They based their assertions on a report broadcast by NBC News on Monday night that showed video footage of the 101st arriving at Al Qaqaa.

By yesterday afternoon, as Mr. Bush made his way through Wisconsin and Iowa, his aides had moderated their view, saying it was a “mystery” when the explosives disappeared. They said that it could have happened before or after the invasion and that Mr. Bush did not want to comment on the matter until the facts were known.”

I wonder what they will claim next.

My guess is it just as stupid as everything else they’ve done in their 4 years.

Sorry about the decrease in posts today, been very busy.

The Bush Administration and the White House are doing everything they can to discredit, ignore, or pass the buck on the report of the missing explosives. It’s simply pathetic what they’ve done to try and bury the story.

First, take a look at this:

“Now my opponent is throwing out the wild claim that he knows where bin Laden was in the fall of 2001, and that our military passed up the chance to get him in Tora Bora. This is an unjustified criticism of our military commanders in the field.”

This was President Bush today at a stump speech in Council Bluffs, Iowa. His wild claim is indeed reality. The Washington Post in April 2002 issued the report in the following link with this headline “U.S. Concludes Bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight.”

Next, what Press Secretary Scott McClellan had to say at the morning press gaggle (it’s long, but worth reading):

“MR. McCLELLAN: Maybe the best way to do this is kind of walk you through how we came to be informed about this. The Iraqi Interim Government informed — told the IAEA — the International Atomic Energy Agency on October 10th that there were approximately 350 tons of high explosives missing from Al Qaqaa in Iraq. And they informed the IAEA because these munitions were subject to IAEA monitoring, because they were considered dual-use materials. And the International Atomic Energy Agency informed the United States mission in Vienna on October 15th about these — this cache of explosives that was missing because of some looting that went on in Iraq toward the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom, or during and toward the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Q When did the President find out?

MR. McCLELLAN: That’s why I said, we were informed on October 15th. Condi Rice was informed days after that. This is all in the last, what, 10 days now.

Q She was informed days after October 15th?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and she informed the President. And the first priority, from our standpoint, was to make sure that this wasn’t a nuclear proliferation risk, which it is not. These are conventional high explosives that we are talking about. And the President wants to make sure that we get to the bottom of this. Now, the Pentagon, upon learning of this, directed the multinational forces and the Iraqi survey group to look into this matter, and that’s what they are currently doing.

Now, if you go back and look at the Duelfer report that recently has come out, according to the Duelfer report, as of mid-September, more than 243,000 tons of munitions have been destroyed since Operation Iraqi Freedom. Coalition forces have cleared and reviewed a total of 10,033 caches of munitions; another nearly 163,000 tons of munitions have been secured and are on line to be destroyed. That puts this all — that puts this all in context.

Q Prior to the 10th, and the notification by the interim government, whose responsibility was it to keep track of these munitions, the IAEA or the multinational force in Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you need to look at the time. I think the Department of Defense can probably answer a lot of these questions for you. But that’s why I pointed out what we did to — literally, there were munitions caches spread throughout Iraq at the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. That’s why I pointed out the large volume of munitions that have already been destroyed and the large volume that are on-line to be destroyed. The sites now are the responsibility of the Iraqi government to secure.

Q But after Iraqi Freedom, there were those caches all around, wasn’t the multinational force — who was responsible for keeping track —

MR. McCLELLAN: At the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom there were a number of priorities. It was a priority to make sure that the oil fields were secure, so that there wasn’t massive destruction of the oil fields, which we thought would occur. It was a priority to get the reconstruction office up and running. It was a priority to secure the various ministries, so that we could get those ministries working on their priorities, whether it was —

Q So it was the multinational force’s responsibility —

MR. McCLELLAN: There were a number of — well, the coalition forces, there were a number of priorities at the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. And munitions, as I said, were literally spread throughout the country. And we have gone in and destroyed, as I pointed out, more than 243,000 tons —

Q Was it the coalition’s responsibility to take care of that —

Q This morning, in Senator Kerry’s remarks, he calls this one of the greatest blunders in the Iraq mission and this presidency. How do you respond to that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Senator Kerry has a strategy of protest and retreat for Iraq. It is essential that we succeed in Iraq, because Iraq is critical to winning the war on terrorism. The President will talk in his remarks today about how the terrorists understand how high the stakes are in Iraq. They are doing everything they can to try to disrupt the progress we are making toward free elections in Iraq. And this is a critical difference in how the two candidates view the war on terrorism. Senator Kerry has a strategy for retreat and defeat in Iraq. The President has a strategy for success in Iraq. We are making important progress. And as I pointed out, the first priority, when it came to these munitions, was to make sure that there was not a nuclear proliferation risk. There is not a nuclear proliferation risk. We’re talking about conventional explosives, when we talk about these — and that’s why I pointed out the more than 243,000 munitions that have already been destroyed, and nearly 163,000 munitions that are in the process or are awaiting to be destroyed now. So this, as I said, this was pointed out by the Iraqi Interim Government to the IAEA, and then we were informed about it just in recent days.

Q Scott, did we just have enough troops in Iraq to guard and protect these kind of caches?

MR. McCLELLAN: See, that’s — now you just hit on what I just said a second ago, that the sites now are really — my understanding, they’re the responsibility of the Iraqi forces. And I disagree with the way you stated your question, because one of the lessons we’ve learned of history is that it’s important to listen to the commanders on the ground and our military leaders when it comes to troop levels. And that’s what this President has always done. And they’ve said that we have the troop levels we need to complete the mission and succeed in Iraq.

Q But you’re saying this is the responsibility of the Iraqi forces. But this was our responsibility until just recently, isn’t that right? Weren’t these — there is some U.S. culpability, as far as —

MR. McCLELLAN: You’re trying — I think you’re taking this out of context of what was going on. This was reported missing after — when the interim government informed that these munitions went missing some time after April 9th of 2003, remember, that was when we were still involved in major military action at that point. And there were a number of important priorities at that point. There were munitions, munition caches spread throughout Iraq. There were — there was a concern that there would be massive refugees fleeing the country. There is concern about the devastation that could occur to the oil fields. There was concern about starvation that could happen for the Iraqi people.

So — and obviously there is an effort to go and secure these sites. The Department of Defense can talk to you about — because they did go in and look at this site and look to see whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction there. So you need to talk to Department of Defense, because I think that would clarify that for you and set that record straight.”

Be sure to pay particular attention to where McClellan moves the blame entirely to some other organization (such as the interim Iraqi government) or passes the buck when it comes to information.

Also, take a look at this. First he says they have 163,000 munitions still waiting to be destroyed but a few minutes later he says we have 363,000 munitions still to be destroyed. Which one is it, Scott? Or are you just basing your story on lies and miscommunications, like the entire Iraq War?

Overall, what we are seeing is the efforts of the Adminstration to push this story quickly out of the news cycle. But I highly doubt this is going to happen. Already, contradictions are evident from within what McClellan said in the press gaggle and the claims made in the New York Times story.

Stay up to date with the most recent news on this and other political news by checking out The Forecast as well as Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo.

A few weeks ago, I posted a few (here and here) Bob Herbert columns about the disenfranchisement and suppression of mainly black elderly voters in urban Florida towns. Evidentally, the right is beginning to take this policy to the extreme.

Today’s NY Times profiles the efforts of the Ohio GOP to challenge as many folks’ votes as possible:

“Republican Party officials in Ohio took formal steps yesterday to place thousands of recruits inside polling places on Election Day to challenge the qualifications of voters they suspect are not eligible to cast ballots.

Party officials say their effort is necessary to guard against fraud arising from aggressive moves by the Democrats to register tens of thousands of new voters in Ohio, seen as one of the most pivotal battlegrounds in the Nov. 2 elections.”

This is simply voter harassment. And to get around many state laws requiring any partisan displays to be a certain distance away from the polling place, these people are being hired as poll watchers, meaning they can legally be there.

But this isn’t only happening in Florida and Ohio. Thursday, here in Des Moines, IA, at Drake University, about 4 satellite voting booths were set up so that students registered on campus and in a few local precincts could come by and cast their vote early.

Lines were indeed long and it took a while for people to vote, but over 450 people (mostly students) came out to vote that day. But the suppression and harassment of voters still existed.

Inside the student union where the voting was taking place, the nonpartisan group New Voters Project, an independent group which has focused its registration on 18-24 year olds, was harassed and asked to leave by the Republican poll watcher.

According to eyewitnesses as well as those involved, the poll watcher came over and immediately began demanding to see the registration of each new student who had just registered. When the youth working for the NVP said “no” he began causing a huge seen and himself tried escorting them outside of the building.

A county official who happened to be there came over and began to try to calm the gentelman down. His challenge was that the NVP was partisan, because they were registering more democrats than republicans. This was true–many students here on campus have democratic leanings and were registering to vote for John Kerry and John Edwards.

The county official could not get the man to calm down, so he finally gave up and asked the youth from the NVP to please leave the building and attempt to register people to vote outside.

My belief, after witnessing where they were forced to be outside, they were unable to register as many voters as they could. Unfortunately, today is the final day to register to vote on campus, but satellite voting is complete. Most students who have not already voted, either through satellite or absentee, will now be forced to find time in their day to walk across most of campus to wait in a highly trafficked polling place to cast their ballot–on a Tuesday, a student’s most busy class day.

The New York Times is reporting that the United States has greatly revised estimates on the number of insurgents and their monetary capacity in Iraq.

The report, which should be a front page splash tomorrow morning, explains the significant underestimations that the government made when first assembling a view of the Iraqi insurgency.

“When foreign fighters and the network of a Jordanian militant, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, are counted with home-grown insurgents, the hard-core resistance numbers between 8,000 and 12,000 people, a tally that swells to more than 20,000 when active sympathizers or covert accomplices are included, according to the American officials.

In recent interviews, military and other government officials in Iraq and Washington said the core of the Iraqi insurgency now consisted of as many as 50 militant cells that draw on “unlimited money” from an underground financial network run by former Baath Party leaders and Saddam Hussein’s relatives.”

What I don’t understand is how the United States could not have predicted this. As seen now, at least two reports prior to the Iraq invasion predicted this type of outcome (see previous entry).

Furthermore, the report states that these new estimates and this new information aren’t not going to result in any major military strategy changes in Iraq.

“These estimates contrast sharply with earlier intelligence reports, in which the number of insurgents has varied from as few as 2,000 to a maximum of 7,000. The revised estimate is influencing the military campaign in Iraq, but has not prompted a wholesale review of the strategy, officials said.”

When looking specifically at these new estimates I would think that a new strategy would have to be considered or at least a review of the current one because all the American public sees is death and destruction of US forces who battle the insurgents. Many satirical weblogs and other comedy sources have began to parody the actions of American forces against the insurgency, particularly The Onion (the headline reads, “U.S. Finishes A ‘Strong Second’ in Iraq War”).

However, I could be wrong in this perspective since I don’t have a lot of understanding how military policy works. But from a concerned civilian’s point of view, some kind of review or revision of policy needs to take place.

The Kerry Campaign needs to listen up. Big news on the economic front. As most of us well know, the economy definitely is not doing as well as Bush has been hyping. Now, a nationally recognized and respected institution has furthered the argument that the economy ain’t doin’ so hot.

The AP is reporting:

“The Index of Leading Economic Indicators, a widely watched barometer of future economic activity, edged lower in September for the fourth month in a row, indicating a slowing in economic growth…

Economist Ken Goldstein called the September decline a “clear signal that the economy is losing momentum heading into 2005.”

Big stuff for the Kerry camp to hammer Bush on. As we see, Bush clearly isn’t reigning over an economy as strong as he’s been making it out to be. Hopefully this will open more people’s eyes to the fact that Bush just isn’t great for the economy.

On Monday, CBS News and the New York Times released the results of polling from October 14-17 (Adobe Acrobat required). It’s taken me a while, but I finally had the time to go over specific internal numbers from the poll, and the results aren’t too good for the Bush/Cheney campaign.

Ruy Texeira at The Emerging Democratic Majority’s weblog “Donkey Rising” has more numbers crunched here. Be sure to check out the rest of the site as well.

Here are some specific numbers:

• 51% of Registered Voters (RVs) feel that Bush doesn’t have the same priorities for the country as American’s do
• 51% of RVs feel that Kerry understands the needs of the people and their problems
• 64% of RVs think the Bush Administration did a poor job of thinking through what would happen in Iraq
• 60% of RVs think the Bush tax cuts mostly helped the rich
• 44% of RVs think the Bush administration’s policies have decreased the overall number of jobs in America
• 54% of Total Respondents (TRs) think Bush is doing a poor job handling the Iraq situation
• 57% of RVs think the country is on the wrong track
• 54% of TRs disapprove of Bush’s handling of foreign policy
• 53% of TRs disapprove of Bush’s handling of the econmy
• President Bush has a 44% approval rating among TRs
• 53% of RVs think that Bush doesn’t understand the needs and problems of the American people
• 52% of RVs are uneasy with Bush’s ability to handle an international crisis
• 55% of RVs feel that things are going somewhat or ver badly in Iraq
• 58% of RVs do not think that Bush has developed a clear plan for Iraq

There were 1048 total respondents and 931 registered voters in the poll.

Essentially, America is showing it’s lack of faith in President George W. Bush. However, the polling results for Kerry were not as strong as democrats would think they would be.

In the end, polls don’t exactly mean a lot. However, during the past decades, they have been quite indicative in the last two weeks or so of the election to determine the national outcome. Pay particular attention to state polls as well, as we see states that have been leaning towards Bush or Kerry are now becoming strong for that candidate, or are coming directly to a tie.