Tommy Franks on the missing Iraq explosives

I haven't blogged about the missing explosives in Iraq because I don't have any particular expertise on the topic and because others have done a fine job of sorting through the wildly varying press accounts.  But here's something on topic from someone who does have some expertise — Gen. Tommy Franks, at a Bush campaign rally today in Westlake, Ohio:

George W. Bush is a leader who knew that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world and to the United States of America, and removed him from power. (Applause.) George W. Bush is a leader who knows that our troops, as of right now, have cleared 10,000 ammunition and weapons sites in Iraq. He knows that they have destroyed 240,000 tons of munitions in Iraq. He knows that they have under control — (applause) — he knows that they have under control another 162,000 tons of munitions in Iraq. We're talking about George W. Bush who knows, who understands that we do not yet have all the facts about 380 tons of munitions in Iraq. And he is a President who will look at you and say, we don't yet have the facts, but we will get the facts. George W. Bush. (Applause.)

In George W. Bush, you're talking about a leader who does not step out every day of his life and make more wild accusations. You're talking about a leader who actually cares about our troops, about their families, and about our veterans. You're talking about a leader who actually respects all those who serve our country with dignity and with honor. You're talking about George W. Bush. (Applause.)

Sen. Kerry has the luxury of not actually being the President and therefore not having to worry about his wild speculations and accusations directly affecting international affairs in the way that comments from a sitting President might.  However, he is responsible for the effect his comments and advertisements and spin may have on military morale — and voters can and should take that into account next Tuesday.

Here's Sen. Kerry responding to questioning tonight on the topic from Tom Brokaw (elipses in original):

Brokaw: This week you've been very critical of the president because of the missing explosives in Iraq.The fact is, senator, we still don't know what happened to those explosives. How many for sure that were there. Who might have gotten away with them? Is it unfair to the president, just as you believe he's been unfair to you, to blame him for that?

Kerry: No. It's not unfair. Because what we do know, from the commanders on the ground, is that they went there, as they marched to Baghdad. We even read stories today that they broke locks off of the doors, took photographs of materials in there. There were materials. And they left.

Brokaw: The flip side of that is that if you had been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Because you...

Kerry: Not necessarily at all.

Brokaw: But you have said you wouldn't go to war against him...

Kerry: That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons.

Brokaw: But he wasn't destroying them...

Kerry: But that's what you have inspectors for. And that's why I voted for the threat of force. Because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's absolutely impossible and irresponsible to suggest that if I were president, he wouldn't necessarily be gone. He might be gone. Because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war. And we might have gone to war. But if we did, I'll tell you this, Tom. We'd have gone to war with allies in a way that the American people weren't carrying the burden. And the entire world would have understood why we were doing it.

Brokaw had the poise not to snicker and say "Yeah, right."  He lacked the integrity, though, to ask, "So how many more years of violating the U.N. resolutions, how many more resolutions without effect would you have required, and name one country that would have joined us with boots on the ground after another two years and ten more resolutions?"  In the meantime, I'm still waiting for Sen. Kerry (or any of my targeted lefty bloggers) to respond to my post entitled "How would Saddam 'not necessarily be in power' if Kerry'd been President?"  Not even my Kerry-supporting readers had the temerity to posit a plausible scenario in which a President Kerry would have accomplished an Iraqi regime change during the last four years.

The whole Brokaw interview is pretty interesting (don't miss Sen. Kerry defending his comment about the Veep's daughter by gratutously invading the familial privacy of another one of his former opponents), but I especially liked this snarly bit on a different topic than the missing munitions (boldface added):

Brokaw: Someone has analyzed the President's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do.

Kerry: That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it, because my record is not public. So I don't know where you're getting that from.

"My record is not public": another exaggeration.  We know your Senate record, Senator.  We know your public statements.  We just don't know your secrets, due to the effectiveness of your stonewalling — and boy, do you have a lot of them.  (About which, more later — maybe tomorrow.)

Bravo to Brokaw for having the stones to ask Kerry about his IQ.  But jeers for missing the world's biggest opportunity, at the best time in history, to ask Kerry:  "Why won't you sign Standard Form 180, Senator?"