Another day, another explosivesgate roundup! Let's begin with the release of a single satellite image of the Al Qaaqaa facility by the Department of Defense, which shows two trucks parked outside some of the bunkers.

GlobalSecurity.org cautions us, however, that the trucks do not appear to be parked directly in front of bunkers which were identified by the IAEA as containing HMX.

Like everyone else, I'm very curious if we'll get additional images, or if this is it. As we say, "developing".

On to other matters: the passtime for all the cool kids in the blogosphere last night was debunking the new video produced by ABC News (which seems to be having a rather difficult time remembering which side it is on).

Powerline, naturally considering it something of a hometown duty (given that it was a Minneapolis affiliate), does the math on the containers shown in the photographs, concluding: "On the most generous interpretation, there are nowhere near 380 tons of explosives shown in any of the KSTP photographs, or in all of them together."

Jim Geraghty systematically dissects the argument that the videotape proves, well, anything:

As usual, it is foolish for folks to jump in and conclude that they know what was in the containers without gathering all of the facts. How many Kerry-backing writers who will cite this video as a smoking gun are familiar with what materials are classified 1.1D?

I sure as heck don't know what 1.1D means. But then, I'm not squeaking "This is it folks!!! Conclusive proof!!! Case closed!!!". (OK, he didn't use exclamation points. But you know he wanted to...)

Captain Ed, also with a hometown dog in the fight, is also not impressed:

"Bottom line? The materials shown in the video could have been any of 80 different materials, with the three from the IAEA actually being among the least likely to have been stored in this manner. The reporters say that the military told them at the time that the area had been secured at an outer perimeter, a sensible approach for a military on a lightning-quick advance. And the Times cannot even verify that the video was taken at the ASP in question."

Meanwhile, Paul over at Wizbang is not impressed with the geography skills of ABC's embed:

So he did not know where he was at the time the footage was shot. Not surprising, he's not from there after all and let's review, it's a freaking desert.. But even after coming home and seeing it on the map, he still can't confirm where he was..."

...and head Wizbanger Kevin sums it up nicely:

1. The containers KSTP filmed could contain any number of items that were not HMX or RDX.

2. They containers were filmed, as best as I can tell from the available evidence, in an area that was not sealed by the IAEA.

Hugh Hewitt wraps this aspect of the story nicely:

One bunker. Unknown number of barrels. Not sure if it is an I.A.E.A. seal. An unidentified expert.

Keep digging, MSM. Game's up. Everybody knows.

The other significant and evolving aspect of the story yesterday was that the Bush administration began to carefully trot out the heavy hitters to begin debunking the story.

First up: General Tommy Franks! Beldar notes his appearance at a Bush campaign rally:

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.

Beldar adds:

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...

Amen.

But Franks wasn't the only big gun coming out yesterday. Rummy himself put in an appearance:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld suggested Thursday that the removal of 377 tons of explosives from an Iraqi munitions base probably took place before U.S. forces arrived, saying any large effort to loot the material afterward would have been detected.

"We would have seen anything like that," he said in one of two radio interviews he gave Thursday at the Pentagon. "The idea it was suddenly looted and moved out, all of these tons of equipment, I think is at least debatable."

I suppose now is as good a time as any to note a theory that's bouncing around my head. Suppose, for a moment, that what we all suspect is true, is true --- that the story is bogus, and the explosives were long gone before U.S. troops got there. Suppose that the administration knows that, and in fact, can prove it.

So what do you do, if you're Karl Rove? Release all the evidence on Wednesday and kill the story immediately?

Or do you let it slide a bit... let things play out, let the speculation run on, and maybe even let your man take a few hits, knowing that your hole card is ready to be played? Knowing that the Senator from Massachusetts never met a U.N.-sponsored story he didn't like, and was sure to climb right out on the limb you're preparing to saw off?

Have you noticed that this story is sucking up all the political oxygen in the crucial days where Kerry is supposed to be trying to recover and pull even with Bush? And that it isn't working?

And lastly, I'll round up, well, myself. In my latest last night, I pointed out that Mohamed El Baradei didn't just pass on a report from Iraq that the explosives were missing, he vouched for the quantities involved:

"The explosives [reported lost by Iraq] are given as: HMX (195 tons), which had been under IAEA seal, and RDX (141 tons) and PETN (6 tons), both subject to regular monitoring of stock levels. The presence of these amounts was verified by IAEA in January 2003."

Emphasis is mine. El Baradei didn't just pass on the Iraqi report. He vouched for its authenticity, at least with regards to the previous levels.