U.N. manipulation?

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

Last Monday, the New York Times carried a front-page story that could change the outcome of the 2004 elections.

According to the Times, a cache of powerful explosives used to "make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons" was missing from an installation where Saddam Hussein had conducted nuclear-weapons research, a facility that "was supposed to be under American military control."

The story was soon all over the television news. Melissa Fleming, the spokeswoman of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), went on CNN to add fuel to the spreading fire over U.S. "responsibility" for the "lost" explosives.

There was only one problem with the story: There was not a shred of evidence that it was true.

The Times quoted unnamed White House and Pentagon officials acknowledging that the explosives vanished sometime after the U.S.-led invasion last year. But named White House and Pentagon officials have said the opposite. And a senior government official told me: "It is very important the world understands that the stuff in Iraq was missing as of April 10, 2003 -- the day after Baghdad fell."

The Times story also quoted IAEA experts as saying they assumed that it was indeed Saddam who had moved the explosives -- before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But, they added, it was possible the explosives were only moved to nearby fields, where the Times suggests they would be "ripe for looting."

But how? Looters could not have stuffed 380 tons of explosives into their pockets and purses. To transport that much material would have required 38 large trucks -- 10 tons per truck. Before the U.S. invasion, such truck convoys moved about Iraq freely. Once the United States was in occupation, that kind of effort could hardly have gone unnoticed.

So this is a murky story at best, and one has to wonder how the Times came to publish it on its front page, just days before the presidential election. The most likely source: Mohammed El Baradei, head of the IAEA. Why might he want to plant such a story?

"The U.S. is trying to deny El Baradei a second term," a high U.S. government official told me. "We have been on his case for missing the Libyan nuclear-weapons program and for weakness on the Iranian nuclear-weapons program."

Mr. El Baradei also opposed the liberation of Iraq and objects to Washington's tough stance regarding Iran's attempts to develop nuclear weapons. He would like nothing better than to see President Bush defeated.