I wonder what the truth is here.

MSNBC uses an anonymous source to back up the NY Times article which basically claims that Bush's incompetence led to the disappearance of hundreds of tons of explosives in Iraq:

At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

However, Drudge is reporting that the same news organization's reporters were there when coalition soldiers first arrived only weeks after the invasion to find that the explosives were already gone.

The way the Times reports it, you would think that we were "too busy" to even go there and that weapons are being looted right this very minute.

Kerry can get away with just calling the President "incompetent". His spokesperson get's into the real details which, should the Drudge report prove true, should be an embarassment to the Democratic Party.

“These explosives can be used to blow up airplanes, level buildings, attack our troops and detonate nuclear weapons. The Bush administration knew where this stockpile was, but took no action to secure the site. They were urgently and specifically informed that terrorists could be helping themselves to the most dangerous explosives bonanza in history, but nothing was done to prevent it from happening.

Except they haven't been used to blow up anything and it's been 18 months. Nice scare tactics. Took no action - oops, maybe he did. Terorrists? I didn't think there were any - certainly not when we invaded according to the Dems. And I thought the "insurgents" in Iraq represneted the legitimate aspirations of the Iraqi people. (Note to self - self, take tongue out of cheek). I wonder if the Times has ever used the word "terrorist" to describe those that have been attacking civilians in Iraq.

"The executions of the Iraqi soldiers on Saturday evening - and what may also have been three civilian drivers in their convoy..."

Notice how the Times leads you to the conclusion that three innocents were killed along with the "soldiers".

Also note that in the ambush that killed 50 unarmed, Iraqi men in civilian clothes, the Times uses the words "militants", "insurgents" and "guerillas". They must have a really dog-eared thesaurus in the newsroom. All they left out was "rebels" and "freedom fighters".

I'll repeat, 50 unarmed men in civilain clothes are murdered in cold blood with the clear goal to terrorize others who might join the military, and this is not terorrism according to the New York Times.