JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, as you said, Lou, there are real questions tonight about whether U.S. troops in Iraq knew about the weapons stockpile and did everything possible to secure them, or were the weapons — the explosives, that is, possibly moved by Saddam Hussein?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE (voice-over): The Pentagon acknowledges there was a window of about six weeks after the invasion of Iraq when it's possible the stockpile of high explosives could have been stolen from the sprawling al Qa Qaa facility south of Baghdad.
But Pentagon officials argue it's more likely the explosives were moved as part of the prewar dispersal ordered by Saddam Hussein. That would have come sometime after March 3, 2003, the last time the International Atomic Energy Agency checked that security seals placed on the bunkers were in tact and before the war actually began March 20.
On April 10 of 2003, the day after the fall of Baghdad, troops from the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division reached the site. No weapons under IAEA seal were found, but the soldiers were advancing on Baghdad and officials acknowledge they didn't conduct a thorough inspection.
Sometime in the next month, May 2003, the IAEA says it relayed concerns to the U.S. government about the stockpile falling into the wrong hands.
Finally, on May 27, more than six weeks after the April visit, a special U.S. exploitation team looking for weapons of mass destruction searched all 32 bunkers and 87 buildings. Again, the stockpile was not found.
While Pentagon officials admit the facility was not completely secured between April 10 and May 27, they say many U.S. troops remained in the general area, and, although small-scale looting was certainly possible, officials scoff at the idea the large number of heavy trucks that would have been required to transport the 380 tons of missing explosives could have been moved into and out of the facility unnoticed during that time.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE: But what a lot of critics have a hard time accepting, Lou, is how the Pentagon would have not known if that material had been moved. After all, the U.S. was using all available technical means, including satellites and spy planes, to track troop movements and look for any effort to hide WMD.
What the Pentagon says is they did see a lot of things moving. They just can't say that any of it were these missing high explosives — Lou.
Pretty fair. And then it continues:
ElBaradei is seeking a third term as director of the IAEA over the objections of the United States. His letter this week focusing on the disappearance of explosives has given President Bush's opponent fresh ammo in the closing days on the campaign trail.
SEN. JOHN K. KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Just as the Bush administration's failure to secure Iraq's borders has led to thousands of terrorists flooding into the country. Their failure to secure those explosives threatens American troops and the American people.
SYLVESTER: But Republicans say the letter is much ado about nothing and accuse the Kerry camp of grasping for headlines.
CHERI JACOBUS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Kerry is very interesting in making as much noise about this as much as possible, but the problem for him is that the American people are always somewhat suspicious of those things that pop up in the final days and the final week of a campaign.
SYLVESTER: Political experts say ElBaradei's job calls for him to stay above the political fray.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: And some of those political experts are playing devil's advocate. They argue if ElBaradei did not release the letter when he did and held on to it past the election, then the Kerry campaign could have accused him of playing politics. And the International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday reiterated that it does not have a political agenda — Lou.
DOBBS: Nonetheless, Lisa, as you've reported, it is clear that politics are in play here.
There are also questions tonight about the way in which news organizations have reported the missing explosives story. "The New York Times" broke the story yesterday, just over a week before the election. Critics say "The Times" should not have rushed the story into print because several important facts remain unclear.
Kitty Pilgrim has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The "Times"' front-page scoop was followed the next day by articles in many major newspapers. A second day story in the "Times" reads "Iraq explosives become issue in campaign."
The question is: Was the "Times" in a rush to press, trying to get the story on the front page just before the election?
MATTHEW FELLING, CENTER FOR MEDIA AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS: It would have been preferable for a different news organization, like "The Washington Post," to break this story, instead of "The New York Times," because "The "New York Times" and the Bush administration have such an antagonistic relationship.
PILGRIM: But some journalism experts go further, saying the story was, in their opinion, overplayed, given the amount of facts available when it went to press.
ROBERT ZELNICK, BOSTON UNIVERSITY JOURNALISM CHAIR: It raises questions about the editorial judgment of those who worked the story and those who edited the story for "The New York Times."
To run a piece like this a week before the election and to have several important facts unknown and the facts that are known suggest that the material was removed before U.S. forces ever got to the area, I think, just overplays it egregiously.
PILGRIM: Talk about bad timing for the president, CBS "60 Minutes" had been planning to run the story on October 31, one day before election eve, but after "The New York Times" article, CBS broadcast a shorter piece on the evening news.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... bunkers located at the al Qa Qaa munitions...
PILGRIM: NBC Correspondent Jim Miklaszewski said explosives were "not found" when its crew went to the site with U.S. troops three weeks after the war started.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Journalism experts say the intensity of the campaign in final days has pushed the limits on reporting, and some we spoke to today object to the fact that the story with still so many holes received such prominence.
Now they say, in normal times, that simply would not have happened — Lou.
DOBBS: And it is ironic that the next day headline in "The New York Times," their story becomes a central campaign issue.
