FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from
Right Intention: Al Qaqaa

Saturday, March 05, 2005

Al Qaqaa

Johah Goldberg asks about the infamous Al Qaqaa explosives:

Remember al-Qaqaa? This was the massive cache of explosives that American forces failed to secure after the fall of Saddam. In the final week of the presidential campaign it was The Most Important Story on Earth.

The New York Times splashed the news on its front page and didn't stop splashing it for a week. In all, the Times ran 16 stories and columns about al-Qaqaa, plus seven anti-Bush letters to the editor on the subject over an eight-day period. Editorial boards across the country hammered the "outrage" for days. It led all the news broadcasts. It became the central talking point of the Kerry campaign, with John Kerry bellowing his indignation at the administration's incompetence at every stump stop. Maureen Dowd wrote a column about it, titled "White House of Horrors."

As we all now know, the story was bogus. So why the sudden intense interest? Liberal media bias was clearly a major factor in publicizing this non-story. But was there another angle?

There's also another news angle that might have been worth investigating. As Times columnist William Safire and Cliff May, a former Times reporter and contributor to National Review Online, have suggested, the whole al-Qaqaa story might have been orchestrated by Mohammed el-Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in order to influence the American presidential election. The Bush White House dislikes Baradei, and reportedly the feelings are mutual (largely because the White House wouldn't support Baradei's bid for another term as the head of the IAEA). According to the Wall Street Journal, Baradei triggered the process which resulted in the al-Qaqaa story getting leaked to the Times and CBS News.

If his intent was to influence the election, it would amount to a major scandal, in that foreign agencies aren't supposed to be trying to influence American elections by dropping distorted bombshells in the last week of a presidential campaign. At least, I don't think they are.

I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case. And the reason few will follow up is because of the weird, unnatural love liberals have for trans-national organizations. Sounds like a job for the blogsphere.


Blogger trulyblueamerican said...

"We all know" that the story is bogus?

Hardly. We all know that the tonnage is in dispute, and the story may have been overstated in that way, but only Fox News junkies would take that Major-for-rent's story for face value.

The only pre-election politicization to happen concerning Al Qaqaa is to march some poor Army officer out to shill for the Bush administration.

I mean...if what that Major said was true, it sure was DAMNED handy of him to come out like that, after Rumsfeld had already taken a beating. That Major's presence begs a larger question: Is Rumsfeld so out of touch, so willing to lie for convenience, that he didnt even check with the Army before making public statements about the whereabouts of those explosives before commenting on them?

No...chances are that Al Qaqaa happened, closer to how the media said it than how the Bushies spun it.

If we had a trustworthy administration, it would be easier to believe them. But the Bush admin lies like you and I breathe, so anyone watching should EXPECT a lie.

10:11 AM  
Blogger RD said...

The Al Qaqaa story was/is a joke. If there were a real story there, the liberal media would have "Abu Ghraib"ed the coverage. And it wouldn't have been dropped once the election was over.

Less than 400 tons missing when we've destroyed over 400,000 tons? And it was gone before we got there? Sorry. The only issue is why this story conveniently ran one week before the election.

1:22 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home