The RDX "Scandal"

OK, here's my view (links are sparse, I am tired today).
(1) Kerry and other anti-warriors should not have automatically assumed that the most anti-Bush version of the story was true. Nor kept repeating this conclusion after NBC cast doubt on it.
Essentially, this is what a lot of pro-war people did during the invasion of Iraq and immediately afterward. Any finding that might be WMDs was trumpeted, and then quietly dropped after it turned out to be a dead end. WorldNetDaily and FrontPageMag were especially bad offenders. I remember both of them running a headline "Chemical Weapons Found," with FPM subtitling it with something to the effect of "Wonder why Hans Blix missed this?"
Well, the very article they quoted said that a site that might have had WMDs was found - the article by no means said anything as definitive as the headline. (I'll find the references later).
In any case, jumping on any favorable news story is a stupid move. One should always be cautious and let the story play out before making definitive statements.
(2) Claims such as the ones that James Robbins made in National Review that this proves Saddam had WMDs are stupid. The material in question was already declared and monitored by the IAEA. If Saddam's possession of said material was a breach, then why didn't we remove it earlier during the inspection period, or during the inspections in the 90s if he had the material then and we knew about it? The same is true for the "components" that have gone missing. If we were truly concerned we should have removed them in the 90s, when the initial inspections were taking place. Or the nuclear material stored at Tuwaitha. Robbins wants us to believe that this proves that Saddam had the ability to produce "WMDs" in the form of "dirty bombs" (which are not a WMD) and thus had to be removed. Robbins ignores the fact that we all knew about Tuwaitha and no one made a move to take the material out of Iraq (as far as I know, it was mostly waste or stuff that Saddam no longer had a use for, but which had to be stored so it wouldn't contaminate anything, from what I understand, much like our proposed Yucca Mountain Facility). In other words, he is to be considered guilty of breaking his agreement not to mkae WMDs because he has nuclear material that (a) everyone was okay with him having and (b) which he couldn't get rid of if he wanted to (how was he supposed to get rid of the Tuwaitha material? Did the US offer to take it off his hands? Does he have the magical ability to caused nuclear isotopes to suddenly lose their radioactivity?
Of course, what are we to expect from National Review, a magazine that has lost all pretense of serious scholarship years ago and has become nothing more than a partisan rag.
UPDATE: This may have some relevance, as it shows that the explosives might not have been removable in the 90s. I'll have to ponder this a bit to see how, if at all, it changes my opinion.