So the Democrats, with help from the New York Times, have produced their October Surprise. What a dud!

In fact, the story the Times reported Monday gives enormous support to President Bush's rationale for invading Iraq in the first place.

The Times breathlessly reported that nearly 400 tons of explosives, part of Saddam Hussein's old weapons program, had disappeared from an installation south of Baghdad. The implication was that the Bush Administration was at fault for not securing the cache. Because the president skimped on troops, goes this reasoning, there were not enough U.S. soldiers to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles. Those weapons could now be used against Americans here at home.

The Kerry campaign has been flogging the story like crazy, and an ad is being prepared, which has Kerry accusing Bush of failing "to secure 380 tons of deadly explosives, the kind used for . . . terrorist bombings. His Iraq misjudgments . . . make our country less secure."

John Edwards noted on the trail that one pound of the explosives is enough to bring down an airliner.

Apparently, the Times scooped CBS TV's 60 Minutes, which had planned to run the story on the Sunday before the election. The source had peddled the tale to both outlets, and the New York Times rushed it into print.

As it turns out, it's not much of a story. First of all, the administration didn't screw up. It seems the weapons may have been gone when we got to Baghdad.

Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News reported Monday night that his network was right there, on the spot, when the 101st Airborne got to the installation south of Iraq's capital on April 10, 2003. "But these troops never found the early 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives called HMX and RDX" said Miklaszewski.

Then on Tuesday Miklaszewski provided more details. He reported that the 101st airborne troops "were not actively involved in the search for any weapons" and that, given the size of the Al Qaqaa facility, it's unclear if the 101st was "near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX." But he went on to say that "in March, shortly before the war began, the [International Atomic Energy Agency] conducted another inspection and . . .  inspectors were unable to inspect the RDX stockpile and could not verify that the RDX was still at the compound." It seems some of the missing materials were moved even before Americans set foot in Iraq--right under the UN's nose! Pentagon officials have speculated that Saddam could have ordered the materials moved before the invasion by coalition forces.

But far more important, Kerry's complaints about Bush only enforce Bush's reason for invading Iraq. Think about it.

Kerry and Edwards say that Bush didn't do enough to prevent the disappearance of the explosives, which could be used against Americans here at home. But the very existence of such explosives--whether defined as weapons of mass destruction or not--was the reason Bush led the nation into Iraq in the first place.

Why did we invade Iraq? Specifically, so dangerous weapons would not be used against us here at home--either by Saddam Hussein's forces or by his terrorist friends. Did we miss some of these weapons? Of course. But we got a lot more than we would have gotten if we had not gone into Iraq in the first place.

If we had followed Kerry's strategy, Iraq today would have far more than 380 tons of explosives to use against us.

Last Sunday, the Washington Post buried a remarkable article by Bob Woodward that listed 22 questions that the nation's top investigative reporter wanted to ask Kerry. The questions, Woodward wrote, were "based entirely on Bush's actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations."

Woodward began seeking the interview in June. He had already spent three and a half hours with the president. At first, Kerry's aides said the interview would happen, but, after months of stringing Woodward along, Kerry changed his mind. "The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers," wrote Woodward.

We'll just have to take Kerry's word for it.

The truth, however, is that Kerry has never offered an alternative strategy for Iraq, except to say that he would work more closely with France and Germany, countries that were not going to hold Saddam to account under any circumstances.

Now, as a result of his exploitation of the questionable New York Times story, we know a bit more. The clear implication is that, in a Kerry administration, the 380 tons of weapons would not have been lost; they would have been secured--even without an invasion. A miracle!

James K. Glassman is a resident fellow at AEI.