Before declaring that President Bush is somehow responsible for American forces overlooking the munitions in Qaqaaland, did the Times review its archives? Reader Steve Power has kindly forwarded us an image of the April 5, 2003 Times story by Judith Miller and Douglas Jehl that includes the following:
Senior American officials have barely mentioned the hunt for Mr. Hussein’s unconventional weapons in recent days. At an industrial site south of Baghdad today, United States troops found what were reported to be thousands of boxes of white powder, believed to be a nerve agent antidote. But preliminary tests showed it to be an explosive.
Troops also discovered documents in Arabic that officers said might relate to Iraq’s chemical warfare program. But military officials here said that special American teams with headquarters in the region had not been sent to the site.
This suggests that the substances and documents, found at the Latifiya Explosives and Ammunition Plant Al Qaa Qaa, about 25 miles south of the capital, might be related to Iraq’s efforts to defend itself against chemical weapons, rather than to an offensive chemical warfare program.
The archives of the Times itself seem to refute the current return to the glory days of Walter Duranty.
For additional perspecitve, Lucianne has directed us to George Neumayr’s “In deep Qaqaa” and John Podhoretz’s “The late hit.” And thanks to RealClearPolitics for adding James Glassman’s “About those lost weapons.” Finally, Wretchard provides a wrap in “The RDX problem resolves itself.”