The already discredited charge that U.S. forces let Iraqi insurgents make off with 380 tons of high explosives after the fall of Baghdad took a dramatic turn late Wednesday night.
The Washington Times is reporting that Russian Special Forces removed the explosives along with other weapons before the U.S.-led invasion:
"Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.
John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad. "
This absolutely changes everything. First of all, the charge that the Bush Administration failed to secure these weapons is DEAD. Second of all and most importantly, it reopens the case of weapons of mass destruction. The article makes it clear that there was a serious effort to get these weapons out of the country before the U.S. came in to avoid any connections to the Russians. It also means that a showdown with Syria could be looming in the very near future plus it weakens the Kerry contention that we should of had the U.N. on board for this and other future operations. Russia holds a veto on the Security Council.
In terms of the election, this story could mean that Kerry's claim that there were no WMD in Iraq seems foolish in light of this new information and at least throws doubt on the idea that our intelligence was badly wrong. It looks like the jury is still out on the WMD question. Many people have long speculated that Iraqi WMD was moved to Syria before the war and now that seems very plausible (though not certain by any means). Will this be enough to move some undecideds into Bush's column and some of Kerry's supporter into the Bush column? I don't know yet. It depends on how much play this story gets and if any more information comes out to give it legs. My gut feeling is that most news organizations might try and ignore this story at least until after the election under the guise that they needed to confirm things first. Yeah, like the NY Times did before starting this mess with false charges.
But for the group of people whose main beef with the President is that he lied or misled about WMD have some new questions to consider before they vote on Nov. 2.