I don't really like getting political in this forum since its difficult to have a genuine discussion with someone with an opposing view, but I'm really confused by the recent push by Kerry and those opposed to the war regarding the supposed missing explosives in Iraq.  They are making it sound like this is the most explosive stuff out there, capable of setting off nuclear bombs and arming hundreds of missiles, etc.

Wouldn't we have been looking for exactly this kind of thing when we went into Iraq?  The absence of such material was precisely the argument that was used to call the war unjust.  Wouldn't the existence of this material qualify as WMD evidence, and, if it was present when our troops went in, wouldn't we have been waving the flag over it and shouting, “here it is!!!”?  And if the International Atomic Energy Association (is that what its called?) indeed knew about this stuff, wouldn't they have been announcing its existence and supporting our position in front of the U.N. that Iraq was a grave threat?

There were supposed to be hundreds of tons of this stuff (which would have taken a major operation to remove).  And the quote I heard was, “and it's so explosive that only a pound took down a Pan-Am flight.” (nevermind that I don't think it would take much explosive at all to bring down a plane)  If it's true, it just seems like a blatant admission of the threat that Iraq posed to us, and then invalidates the assertion that Bush is unfit because he rushed into an “unjust“ war.  If it's untrue, then there is more strong evidence that John Kerry is an opportunistic liar.  Either way, things don't look good for Kerry.

Of course, I am open to differing conclusions from people who know more about the explosives.

[UDPATE 3:17pm] Here's another insightful opinion similar to mine.