Truth Gone Missing - Part Deux
Earlier this week, we posted the following.
Seems this is a story that will never end:
Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein’s weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.
Russia? Oh, say it isn’t so! And yet . .
Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs
Oh really? I guess the volley is back in the Kerry court with this one. His campaign has stretched the truth so far - it has snapped. ABC News has now reported that there were only THREE tons of RDX, according to IAEA reports:
The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing ” presumably stolen due to a lack of security ” was based on “declaration” from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility.
But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency’s inspectors recorded that just over 3 tons of RDX was stored at the facility ” a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.
The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the start of the United States launched “Operation Iraqi Freedom” in March 2003.
How did 3 tons become 380? What kind of fuzzy math is that?
Why is Senator Kerry still running with this? He is stretching this thing as long as he can in order to discredit to the administration - if I were a Kerry supporter, I would be embarassed., nay - OUTRAGED!
How will Senator Kerry pivot from blaming the US military to blaming the Russians.? And will he? Or will he continue to IGNORE the facts, as they unfold? The United States CANNOT afford to have a Commander in Chief sitting in office who is so EASILY sucked in by headlines in the main stream media! This topic has taken up so much time during the last week heading into the elections - - it has wasted the time of the American people.
“You didn’t guard the ammunitions dump - and now our troops are at greater risk. The President, The Commander in Cheif is not doing his job.” - Senator John Kerry, as early as 6am this morning.
Kerry’s top foreign policy advisor is quoted as saying, “We don’t really know the facts.” John Kerry is making accusations about the President, and decisions about the troops without knowing the facts. This is the man to be in the Oval Office? I don’t think so.
Kerry is impulsive and doesn’t gather all the facts to make good decisions. Kerry reacts to headlines. It shows that Kerry shoots off his mouth before thinking.
Once again, I ask - is THIS is one of those countries . . . one of those members of the United Nations Security Council, that Senator John Kerry wants permission from before we take action to defend our country?
Hugh Hewitt sums it up:
JOHN KERRY now closes his presidential campaign exactly as he opened his political life: Attacking the United States military. Thirty-three years ago, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he indicted the soldiers of Vietnam as war criminals, the heirs of Genghis Khan. This week he embraced an already discredited account of missing munitions to attack the reputation of the 3rd Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne…
Once again, I state - No thank you, Senator Kerry!
Related:
Saddam’s WMD have been found
Iraqi Weapons in Syria
Russia Tied to Iraqi Missing Arms
The Times ‘Explosive’ Article Could Backfire
The Myth of the “Missing Explosives”: A Shameless Lie
The Commander-in-Chief
Discrepancy Found in Explosives Amounts
Commander Says Unlikely Large-Scale Removal of Explosives Occurred After U.S. Invasion
Russian troops linked to missing Iraqi explosives
October 28, 2004 - 07:05 AM on October 28th, 2004
Once again Kerry is going for the vote from the uninformed, illiterate, alzheimer victims,and the unaware college kids, and such. Mis-informing the uninformed is the strategy of his campaign. The Democrates who are just looking for an escape from the war-on-Terror because they have lost interest in it already. MoveOn.Org people are perfect examples, their philosophy is “let’s just go on with our lives and pretend 9/11 never happened because it makes me feel uncomfortable and scared!” While we right wing “fanatics” are saying “Get tough you Liberal
winning babies, they want us Dead, Don’t you get it”. Pray John F Kerry (Unfit for any political office)(The most pathetic candidate in 100 years) doesn’t become the President.
October 28, 2004 - 07:11 AM on October 28th, 2004
The thing that pissed me off about Kerry is that he blamed the troops first. The story broke on Monday and he had an ad that night. It is now thursday and look where the story has gone!
If these are the allies he wants on our side, no thanks!
October 28, 2004 - 07:16 AM on October 28th, 2004
Same here, peejz - - blaming the troops and dumping on them seems to be a running theme throughout Kerry’s political career — starting from day one.
October 28, 2004 - 07:21 AM on October 28th, 2004
And as a side note, my belief that there were WMD’s doesn’t seem so far fetched now does it? And look who has their name as a possible country of refuge? Syria!
October 28, 2004 - 07:22 AM on October 28th, 2004
Funny side note - - for the last three years, the liberals have been telling us there were no WMD, at all . . . now liberal #1 is running the last weeks of his campaign on it.
October 28, 2004 - 07:28 AM on October 28th, 2004
And that behaviour just begs of me to call him an ass!:razz:
October 28, 2004 - 07:32 AM on October 28th, 2004
*gasp*
Good ol’ peejz — never afraid to call a spade a spade (or an ass)
October 28, 2004 - 07:42 AM on October 28th, 2004
This indicates why the mascot of the Democrats is a jackass. And unfortunately it gives the poor animal a bad name. Don’t they think a lot of people are going to see through their little smoke screen. Come on already.
If you’ll pardon the obvious pun, I hope this things blows up right in their faces. 
October 28, 2004 - 07:53 AM on October 28th, 2004
And it is now 8:51 a.m.m and it seems to be. But will KERRY say he is sorry to the troops? Oh heavens no!
But let’s take a moment to look at what may be going on here. Was the UN and IAEA trying to influence our election 1 week before the vote? What will this do to our relationship with Russia?
October 28, 2004 - 07:58 AM on October 28th, 2004
One would think that Putin has since learned his lesson about assisting nations that harbor and support terrorists, after Beslan.
October 28, 2004 - 08:23 AM on October 28th, 2004
I just think this whole thing runs far deeper than we know. I agree with you Lisa. You would think he would have!
October 28, 2004 - 08:57 AM on October 28th, 2004
Kerry doesn’t dump on the troops he supports the troops so much he wants to save their lives by getting idiot dubya outta there. This is another prime example of this administration’s total incompetence in this war. They went in looking for WMDs but dont secure the weapons they know about? This is in no way the troops fault this is Bush screwing up yet again. Unfortunatly the people on this site can never admit that Bush made a mistake because he is perfect right? I still haven’t heard anyone here that will admit that Bush has made at least one mistake.
–==Edited by Admin: #1) Don’t post articles without a link to the source and #2 Do not post the entire body of the article, but rather, a ’snippet’ of it with a link to the article if people care to click, they can. Thanks==—
October 28, 2004 - 09:01 AM on October 28th, 2004
What a jerk kerry is he is finding fualt with everyone but bill clinton and al gore they were the ones who let bin laden escape the first time and now komrade kerry is trying to blame everyone else but the real ones at fualt:roll:
October 28, 2004 - 09:01 AM on October 28th, 2004
10: One can only hope, Lisa.
And Syria, if the allegations are true, would do well to take a lesson from Libya.
But this story needs to get pounded as hard as NYT, CBS and CNN were pounding the false story.
Bush still has a bunch of money to spend on advertising though. I would think a new ad about this will blanket the airwaves.
October 28, 2004 - 09:08 AM on October 28th, 2004
You guys can’t go after Syria that is where you outsource your torture
October 28, 2004 - 09:12 AM on October 28th, 2004
–==Edited by Admin - - try again. This time, format your links using the buttons provided - long URLs dont’ wrap==–
October 28, 2004 - 09:19 AM on October 28th, 2004
Kerry never actually “dumped on the troops.” That’s straight from the RNC’s response to this flap. The Washington Times story is based on one source and has been ignored by most media outlets - it is quite far-fetched, especially due to Russia’s hard headedness at the UN this week that the issue be pursued that body. I invite you to read another newspaper on this story, or Howard Kurtz’s “Media Notes” at the Washington Post’s site. It appears probable that the weapons disappeared during the war - the only real evidence is that the Pentagon claims that they were not there in late May, while IAEA inspectors confirmed their existence before they were expelled by the US. You guys have jumped all over a shaky, fringe aspect to this story, as you did last time, when you were wrong. No matter how this story plays out, the explosives going missing was a product of Bush’s decision to go to war - in the very least. Like I said, I invite you to check out as many sources as possible, so you can see just how out there your W.T. story is.
Have a good morning.
October 28, 2004 - 09:23 AM on October 28th, 2004
Other sources, Sandy - you mean like the ABC and the CBS articles that are linked in the post?
Sources like that?
October 28, 2004 - 09:38 AM on October 28th, 2004
Well, Kurtz mentions the WT article, but gives it little heed. Isn’t the CBS article you linked to from 2003? (forgive me if I’m wrong, I’m in a hurry). I can’t see how Bush’s war is not the culprit here. And this story has had the unfortunate consequence of focusing public attention on high explosives, rather than the tonnes and tonnes of small arms, RPGs, mortars, and other munitions that have been looted since 2003 (though we can’t blame all that on Bush, there are several stories written through 2003-2004 that have been written by embedded reporters who stood as US troops watched Iraqis loot these- small arms and mortars- items). To the defense of the NYT, their story allowed for the possibility of the weapons to go missing during the war. As for the Russian story, I don’t know, it seems far-fetched, but we’ll wait and see.
October 28, 2004 - 09:41 AM on October 28th, 2004
It could be form 2003, this is an old story, after all.
So, if I”m understanding you correctly - the explosives would never have gone ‘missing’ if Bush wouldn’t have invaded Iraq to begin with? So, if Saddam were still in power - everything would be ok?
October 28, 2004 - 09:52 AM on October 28th, 2004
Alias- are you afraid GWB just may have been right after all? Your tone sure indicates it. Kerry most certainly did dump on the troops. You can spin that any way you want, but the fact remains that he said that the site wasn’t guarded.
Lisa- See that is the way they worm their way around the truth The oil for food scandal is showing that Saddam and our ‘friends’ had found a way around the sanctions that were in place. So the argument that the sanctions were working just doesn’t float!
October 28, 2004 - 09:54 AM on October 28th, 2004
Lisa- do you get headaches at times while reading some of this?:wink:
October 28, 2004 - 09:57 AM on October 28th, 2004
12-Why don’t you try telling the Viet Nam Veterans and former POWs that Kerry supports the troops. You’d be spitting teeth and blood, because they know better. John Kerry doesn’t support anybody except himself and his own agenda. And since you’re Canadian,:razz: why don’t you just butt out of our affairs, thank you. You won’t bet he one who has to livve with John Kerry as President.:shock:
October 28, 2004 - 09:57 AM on October 28th, 2004
Nancy- why would the Russian story seem so far fetched? Because it doesn’t fit with what you want to believe? So would it have been better to leave Saddam alone,and let him circumvent our sanctions?
October 28, 2004 - 09:58 AM on October 28th, 2004
peejz - you have NO idea lol
October 28, 2004 - 10:13 AM on October 28th, 2004
Kerry is a modern day B. Arnold.
October 28, 2004 - 10:15 AM on October 28th, 2004
John Kerry - Fundamentally Flawed
Mr. Kerry proceeds on the erroneous assumption that a Senator with a 20 year record of…well…nothing is fit to be Commander in Chief. He is the worst sort of chap by virtue of his lack of virtue. Disregarding the age old adage that if one is a her…
October 28, 2004 - 10:27 AM on October 28th, 2004
21: Peejz, I think Alias may be a little concerned over the implications of the consequences of Kerry’s “flexibility” regarding these issues. Suddenly we’ve gone from “We shouldn’t be in Iraq because there are no WMDs” and “We have failed the global test and need to mend fences with the rest of the world so we can all be one big happy global planet” or whatever to “Bush is irresponsible for allowing the WMDs to disappear and for allowing these countries to take advantage of our ‘ineptitude’”! I mean, never mind the fact that this so-called ‘ineptitude,’ ie ignoring the whole thing, was something that Kerry was all but encouraging in the first place!
Where are the advantages to that type of “flexibility”? Isn’t that the type of “flexibility” that causes buildings to “mysteriously” blow up?
I hope the majority of voters are smart enough to figure this out. Liberals have twisted Kerry’s flip-flopping tendancies into “flexibility,” but I fear the country would become “flexible” enough to twist into a pretzel under Kerry.
October 28, 2004 - 10:28 AM on October 28th, 2004
There ya go, J Thomas.
October 28, 2004 - 10:28 AM on October 28th, 2004
I wouldn’t mind you guys having a president that respects the environment so I dont have to deal with smog warnings all summer because michigan is polluting our air. Wouldn’t mind someone who respects NAFTA either. It’s not just you guys that have to live with Bush it’s the whole world due to his idiotic foreign policy.
October 28, 2004 - 10:32 AM on October 28th, 2004
i’ve noticed many times that this election, rather than being a referendum on George Bush and what he has done with the country in the last 4 years, it’s often diverted to attacking Kerry.
this election, no matter how hard one tries to make it about Kerry, it’s actually Bush that has been the president for the last 4 years, and should be judged for his performance.
i’ve lost track of the number of times i’ve raised questions about Bush, only to get responses regarding Kerry and, sadly, Clinton.
that’s easy, but not quite on point.
October 28, 2004 - 10:43 AM on October 28th, 2004
Blaming Bush is NOT blaming the troops. What is hurting the troops is Bush’s neglegence, and unpatriotic concubines that blindly cover for him at the expense of American blood.
These explosive are perfect for suicide bombers and ambush mines. Bush made the world safer?
talk about liar!
October 28, 2004 - 10:45 AM on October 28th, 2004
We have many reasons we don’t want Kerry as our President - - reason number one is because we want Bush as our President, because we are happy with the last 4 years of his term. Is that not obvious to you shiloh?
And again - Bush has been President for 4 years. Kerry has been a Senator for 20 years — his voting record and stance(s) on the issues are at issue here, as well as Bush’s record over the past 4. If you look on this website - you’ll find many reasons why we support Bush, shiloh - - maybe you have selective reading problems?
note: when I say “we” - I’m talking about the creators of this site. I would never pretend to speak for anyone else.
October 28, 2004 - 10:46 AM on October 28th, 2004
Amazingly enough, Kerry is stating that Iraq is a dangerous place with dangerous weapons.
October 28, 2004 - 10:46 AM on October 28th, 2004
32 - creators aside, i believe my point is valid.
October 28, 2004 - 10:52 AM on October 28th, 2004
30: Okay, then, Shiloh. What concrete evidence do you have — preferably from the least biased source you can find — that Kerry can do better?
October 28, 2004 - 10:53 AM on October 28th, 2004
33: Oh, but Lisa, he’s just being flexible and open-minded.
Right? 
October 28, 2004 - 10:53 AM on October 28th, 2004
WILL ANYONE ADMIT TO AT LEAST ONE BUSH MISTAKE??? PLEASE TELL ME YOU DONT THINK HE IS A PERFECT GOD! NAME 1 MISTAKE ABOUT THIS WAR PLEASE.
Kerry screwed up the scores for his favourite baseball team’s world series performance. Kerry said he met with ALL the security council but didn’t actually meet every single one there is another mistake. I can admit that Kerry is human and makes mistakes can you guys not do the same for Bush?
October 28, 2004 - 10:54 AM on October 28th, 2004
Alias, do you honestly believe that after the terrorists finished with us they wouldn’t cross the border into Canada and do the same thing. If you do, then you’re living in a fantasy world, bub. And John Kerry has neither the guts, brains or spine to protect us from that. Wake up in the real world.
October 28, 2004 - 10:54 AM on October 28th, 2004
shiloh;
I agree with you on this one.
October 28, 2004 - 10:55 AM on October 28th, 2004
32 - Lisa, you can include me in that “we.” Shiloh, if you want to find Kerry supporters and Bush bashers, there are plenty of sites that do just that. You are getting your agreement from some people on this site, but you won’t hear it from us (except on certain select issues) b/c we love our Bush
ops:
October 28, 2004 - 10:55 AM on October 28th, 2004
I think every day that Bush is in office the world gets more dangerous and Kerry would make it safer for you and us.
October 28, 2004 - 10:56 AM on October 28th, 2004
37: Yes, I believe Bush’s policy on illegal immigration is a mistake. I also have issues with his limited funding of stem-cell research, though as long as no embryos are being deliberately created only to be killed in the name of research, and these cells are harvested from such sources as umbillical cord blood or body fat, I am not as bothered by the notion.
But of course, Alias, in answering your question, I’ve managed to get way OT, which I’m sure was the whole idea.
October 28, 2004 - 10:56 AM on October 28th, 2004
Let’s face it; Senator Kerry is not that strong of a candidate for President. If he wins, it will be largely because of the mistakes that President Bush has made.
October 28, 2004 - 10:57 AM on October 28th, 2004
TFK
Bush is opening the Mexican border — how many terrorists can get through there?
Bush has failed every attempt to make us safer: 9/11, war in Iraq, open US borders.
Fools…
October 28, 2004 - 10:57 AM on October 28th, 2004
41: Whatever floats your Titanic, Alias.
But I’m sure your opinion will be reflected in your vote, just as my opinion will be reflected in mine. 
October 28, 2004 - 10:58 AM on October 28th, 2004
Drives ya nuts, doesn’t it Alias? Calm down already lol
Bush and his administration underestimated the insurgents and the uprising that would follow the fall of Saddam’s regieme. How that happened, I am unsure - - except for the fact that we are fighting an enemy that has a huge edge over us . . and that is, they don’t care if they die. they would prefer it, actually.
I also think that Abu Gharib was a mistake of HUGE proportions, something that may well have been avoided had decent policy and training been better in place - - and have stated as much on this blog, if you guys would take it upon yourselves to read the archives and stop expecting people to hand you the information on a silver platter.
That’s about as much as I’ll give ya — we have almost two years of archived posts and comments. Commence the search
October 28, 2004 - 11:01 AM on October 28th, 2004
37 - of course Alias. Bush is completely human and makes mistakes. I don’t agree with everything he does or says. But I like him, agree with him on most things, and think he’s far better than Kerry. As I have said many times before, if the Dems had put up a credible candidate, I would definitely have considered him. But there is just no choice this election.
October 28, 2004 - 11:02 AM on October 28th, 2004
41, part 2: Frankly, I don’t see how this is possible.
Try to pretend, for one moment, that Kerry, not Bush, is the current president. The rumblings of the WMDs started in 2003 (yes, 9/11 did occur, and we groveled to the rest of the world and swore we would give Al Queda whatever they asked for, in passing the so-called “global test”), and Kerry essentially declared that it was a load of crap and that nothing would be done.
Now then…fast-forward to the here and now, where suddenly it was announced that, surprise, there were WMDs, and Russia helped Iraq move them back in 2003. How would Kerry, in his “flexible” mindset, explain this, and how would he explain how this was “winning the global test”?
October 28, 2004 - 11:03 AM on October 28th, 2004
41 HOW???? He changes his mind on terrorism, the war on Iraq, and about everything else more than his underwear??? Do we really CARE about the UN? He’s going to have some peace talks with terrorists? Do you get they want to SLAUGHTER us?
October 28, 2004 - 11:04 AM on October 28th, 2004
Oh, and, sjiloh, how many were here before he was elected? Just asking. And since when has closing the borders stopped them from coming in? Again, just asking.
October 28, 2004 - 11:04 AM on October 28th, 2004
AG - that global test includes Russia (see above post) and France, who has been on the payroll of Saddam, while talking out of the other side of their mouths about how they won’t tolerate his noncompliance with sanctions.
Yea - these are the guys I want grading our papers.
October 28, 2004 - 11:08 AM on October 28th, 2004
If Kerry had been president there would probably be 1100 American soldiers still alive today.
October 28, 2004 - 11:08 AM on October 28th, 2004
Oh, and OT, CBS was going to do a 60 minutes on this story on Sunday night, but scraped it, and I am sure digging for something else. Meanwhile, the night before the election, Kerry and Bush are both going to be on Sportsline discussing their feelings about sports, namely baseball. Does anyone find this strange? :?::?:
October 28, 2004 - 11:09 AM on October 28th, 2004
52 - and Saddaam in power, and perhaps a lot more dead on our soil. Speculate all you want.
October 28, 2004 - 11:09 AM on October 28th, 2004
Yes, Alias - and Saddam would still be in power — missing explosives and all.
October 28, 2004 - 11:10 AM on October 28th, 2004
Well, K - hopefully Kerry will be a bit more well read on his baseball scores by then.
October 28, 2004 - 11:11 AM on October 28th, 2004
AG
Who made this statement and what does “world test” mean?
“A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations. The Gulf war put this new world to its first test. And my fellow Americans, we passed that test.”
October 28, 2004 - 11:12 AM on October 28th, 2004
57: I don’t know, DG. Ask Kerry.
October 28, 2004 - 11:13 AM on October 28th, 2004
You criticize Kerry for having fresh ideas for this GLOBAL problem and say that Bush will bring you security. I just dont get it he failed on 9/11 he is attacking the wrong country. The terrorists that attacked you are still out there while he is worrying about getting oil in Iraq this man has done absolutely nothing to make you and your children any safer all he has done is make the world more dangerous for you and your kin while taking away your civil rights to turn you into a police state living in fear. Bush is doing exactly what the terrorists want he is taking away your freedom one step at a time.
October 28, 2004 - 11:13 AM on October 28th, 2004
dg - nice try, but I do believe a lot more light has been shed on the UN these days. What we knew in 1991 about the UN is not the UN we know today.
October 28, 2004 - 11:14 AM on October 28th, 2004
51: Boy, Lisa, there’s a shock!!!
October 28, 2004 - 11:15 AM on October 28th, 2004
59: Oh, the ideas are fresh all right. We’d practically have a new president every morning, and we wouldn’t know whether he was fighting for us or against us!
October 28, 2004 - 11:16 AM on October 28th, 2004
This is totally off topic, but related to the baseball stuff…on news radio last night, they were talking about superstition relating to the Red Sox winning in Busch stadium and what that meant…it was funny. One guy called in and said, “it’s been 86 years since the Red Sox won the World Series, and since Bush is the 43rd president, and this will be his 2nd term, 43 x 2 = 86.”
Okay, a little humor to brighten your mood.
October 28, 2004 - 11:16 AM on October 28th, 2004
59, part 2: You know, there is such a thing as fresh manure. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it smells acceptable.
October 28, 2004 - 11:16 AM on October 28th, 2004
Alias - you and I completely differ on that. I don’t believe Bush failed on 9/11 - he didnt’ attack the wrong country. He took us into Afghan and took out the Taliban and over 75% of Al Qaeda has been disabled.
As for Operation Iraqi Freedom - - well, I’m not going to spend the time typing out my feelings about the Iraqi war. Once again, we have archives - if you take the time to read them, you’ll know that you and I are polar opposites on the issue.
And your comment says it all . . that Bush went into Iraq for the oil. If that is so - - then where the heck is it?
October 28, 2004 - 11:18 AM on October 28th, 2004
This story is getting out of hand. To late for Kerry to retract it now, he’s already dove into this so far, they couldn’t pry him out with a shoehorn. A lapse in judgement on his part, I say.
If elected, won’t this be a telling sign of what kind of President he will become?
October 28, 2004 - 11:21 AM on October 28th, 2004
Yes, Snatch - Kerry would be a reactive President who will freak out at the headlines every single morning. If he becomes President - his handlers need to keep him away from the newspapers!
October 28, 2004 - 11:21 AM on October 28th, 2004
63: LOL…thanks, K!
As a St. Louisan, I definitely need a bit of humor regarding the Series, which I swear the Cards pretty much threw away!
They didn’t even try nearly as hard as they tried en route to the Series! It was embarrassing!
Why they would just stand there and let Boston clobber them to that degree is beyond me. I couldn’t tell you whether the motivation was vaguely political with regards to Kerry (a stretch, even for me, admittedly) or if the blame will ultimately fall on “the poor, decrepit Busch Stadium, which ironically, up until the Series, seemed to be about the only place where the Cards would have a fighting chance!
But now I am way OT, lol, so I’ll stop. I just feel badly for Tony LaRussa getting let down in such a way, what with this being his first Series and all. He doesn’t seem like the Rams-coach Mike Martz at all…
October 28, 2004 - 11:22 AM on October 28th, 2004
Lisa so what if Saddam is still in power? He was not a threat report after report keeps showing this. Even Colin Powell said the sanctions were working. The world is far more dangerous with Saddam out of power the way it was done. I’m not saying that Saddam should have been left alone to remain in power forever but he was not a priority there were far more dangerous countries even if he did have WMD’s regime change should not have happened the way it did. Bush 41 didn’t go to Bagdhad for a reason, he couldn’t keep the peace. There was no viable way to get out.
October 28, 2004 - 11:22 AM on October 28th, 2004
Everyday this missing explosives story becomes more defined, and everyday, the developments appear to contradict what Kerry, the U.N. (IAEA), the New York Times and last place CBS is trying to spin to us.
October 28, 2004 - 11:23 AM on October 28th, 2004
K - I’ve also hear that if the Washington Redskins win their game the week before election day - the incumbant wins.
Similarly, I’ve heard if the Packers lose the week before election day - the incumbant wins.
Guess who the Pack is playing on Sunday? lol
Could be the only time in history I’ll be cheering for the other side on Sunday!
October 28, 2004 - 11:23 AM on October 28th, 2004
67: But Lisa, how would he be able to run the country with his limited number of facts if they did that?
October 28, 2004 - 11:23 AM on October 28th, 2004
30: shi, the only way I can explain it is that, from my perspective, the standards tend to get applied unevenly from Clinton to Bush to Kerry.
With Clinton, nothing he did rose to the level of impeachment no matter how illegal, improper or inappropriate. Everything revolved around a circular argument of one side saying “We need to investigate for evidence of wrongdoing,” and the administration saying “You can’t hold an investigation for evidence of wrongdoing without evidence.”
Then, Bush is elected, and all of a sudden the standard for an investigation becomes “It’s not the validity of the claim, but the seriousness of the charge.”
Then Kerry, the candidate says no one who hasn’t worn the uniform can criticize him on his military service. And then it became no one who wasn’t on the same boat as he could criticize him. He said he wasn’t going to make Bush’s TANG service an issue, and yet he did on GMA and at other times. By the same token, Kerry shouldn’t be able to criticize any president because he has never held that office.
I think both candidates should bear the weight of close scrutiny for their records, since past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior. That said, if a candidate wants to replace the sitting president, why is it so out of bounds to call him to account for his past conduct and political record? Kerry won’t do serious interviews, won’t release his military records, and does not have concrete plans for dealing with foreign threats to our existence. And seriously, jobs, taxes and entitlement programs won’t matter much if you’re living in the town where the next attack might occur. Or you lose your job because your company’s nerve center just got blown to bits.
Of course, it’s just my perspective, but you can have the luxury of seeing to your comfort after you’ve eliminated those who are threats to your existence.
October 28, 2004 - 11:24 AM on October 28th, 2004
The problem is the french and russians are only doing what Halliburton was doing.
The US has led another bad example.
October 28, 2004 - 11:25 AM on October 28th, 2004
71: Sorry, Lisa — you’re on your own there, at least as far as I’m concerned.
I don’t know who would win if the Giants won, but Kurt Warner is a Giant now, so of course I’m now a Giants-fan!
October 28, 2004 - 11:25 AM on October 28th, 2004
You know, I see a few people on this post saying something to the effect that when Kerry is blasting the president on the “missing explosive” story that he is not bashing the American forces (dg, sandyb)… when in fact he is…
think about it, Kerry says that HE (Bush) didn’t guard the ammunition dumps… Pres. Bush is not going to go over their and guard them himself (yes, I know they weren’t there, this is hypothetical) he would use the troops to do that. now, let’s say those explosives were there, because that is what Kerry believes, so when he blames the President for not guarding these explosives, then he is in fact blaming those that work for the commander-in-chief (American Forces) for not guarding them… BUT, we know the explosives weren’t there when the troops arrived and Kerry is coming out and saying we didn’t guard what wasn’t there, basically he is saying that the troops did not do their job… if that is not bashing the troops I don’t know what is…
there were no explosives and the troops have done a great job and John Kerry should apologize for what he is saying…
and shiloh and sandyb need to put in a job application at CBS.
October 28, 2004 - 11:25 AM on October 28th, 2004
75% of Al Qaeda is BULLSHIT. Condi made this statement then was asked how many were killed… she didn’t know… how many were there to begin with?… she didn’t know and guessed from tens to hundreds. This 75% of Al Qaeda is bullshit propaganda that they can’t backup. They say 75% but can never supply the numbers that they get this from.
October 28, 2004 - 11:25 AM on October 28th, 2004
Alias - now there’s a statement that’s showing your true colors. So what if Saddam was still in power?
You haven’t read the Duelfer report have you?
October 28, 2004 - 11:26 AM on October 28th, 2004
Alias - did I say killed? I don’t think I did.
October 28, 2004 - 11:27 AM on October 28th, 2004
73: Sounds like an awful lot of double-speak on the part of Kerry, doesn’t it? Clinton has taught him well.
This has just been such a dirty campaign for the word go that I just hope it’s over in time for New Year’s Eve.
October 28, 2004 - 11:28 AM on October 28th, 2004
76:
October 28, 2004 - 11:29 AM on October 28th, 2004
dg, #74-
Did you read the entire article???
one thing that caught my attention was this little sentence:
October 28, 2004 - 11:29 AM on October 28th, 2004
the Duelfer report show that Saddam was not a threat I will never argue that he wasn’t a bad man that wanted weapons but he didn’t want to sell them to terrorists. Also the UN Sanctions were working at keeping these aspirations for weapons just that nothing more than a dream for Saddam. Iraq is far more of a threat now that Saddam isn’t there.
October 28, 2004 - 11:30 AM on October 28th, 2004
sorry killed or captured
October 28, 2004 - 11:31 AM on October 28th, 2004
Alias, if you can say with a straight face that the sanctions were working - you didn’t read the report, you read the leftist spin on the report.
October 28, 2004 - 11:31 AM on October 28th, 2004
80:
“For” the word go = from the word go
October 28, 2004 - 11:33 AM on October 28th, 2004
Alias-
RE: 69 - Look, I see what you’re saying but the Duelfler Report begs to differ.
They did not find stockpiles of WMDs but DID find evidence that Saddam had every intention of reaquiring them plus developing his Nuclear programs once the sanctions were lifted.
As the Oil for Food Scandal points out, he was skimming off the top in order to finance his ambitions. France, Russia, and China were doing everything they could to move the process along because they were benefitting in cheap Iraqi oil and kicking the rest of the profits back to Saddam. The U.N. had a mutial interest with Saddam that they did not want the U.S. to know about.
Now I ask you this: If our Intelligence, plus that of many other Countries says that he had WMDs that he could sell to Terrorists that would do the U.S. harm, and he was not complying with the resolutions that he agreed to, then are we not in our right to take action against him?
And furthermore, what happens when he has the time to become more powerful and more formidable of an enemy? If you think Iraq is bad now, just think about what would have happened if we had drug our heels then had to deal with Saddam anyways in 10 years/
October 28, 2004 - 11:35 AM on October 28th, 2004
85: Well, Lisa, intervening here for a brief moment, I’m sure these people would insist that we’re putting a right-winged spin on it, so in a way, I guess this issue will ultimately even itself out.
October 28, 2004 - 11:37 AM on October 28th, 2004
I can see what you’re saying, AG - except the report isn’t right or left winged. I linked the PDF version of the entire report in the post I linked above — it doesn’t have spin, it just has facts. Anyone who reads the entire thing couldn’t possibly say sanctions were working.
October 28, 2004 - 11:37 AM on October 28th, 2004
madbarr
We’re not blaming the troops!
It isn’t the troops that decide what to guard and what to attack — that is the job of military commanders.
Bush is the Commander-In-Chief. He didn’t have enough troops to guard the oil wells and the weapons depots!
But while your trying to paint me as unpatriotic and not supporting the troops, you’re degrading the troops by covering for the civilian commanders that have not secured Iraq, contrary to their public statements.
You are assisting in the lie that is getting Americans killed.
October 28, 2004 - 11:38 AM on October 28th, 2004
71 - I will put Washington down for a low score in my football pool, but still pull for the Pack.
October 28, 2004 - 11:39 AM on October 28th, 2004
The troops were there, dg. They are estimating that it would take 38 trucks to haul out 380 tons of those explosives. The troops were there and they say there’s no way that many trucks could haul out those explosives without them knowing.
Are you calling the troops liars?
October 28, 2004 - 11:40 AM on October 28th, 2004
You can’t appease tyrants like Saddam. Has Chamberlain’s Folly not taught us anything. If you try to be tolerant of them, your kindness or lackadaisical attitude only emboldens them…just like the bully at school. If you don’t stand your ground, he will just continue to beat you up because he knows you aren’t going to do anything.
We can’t have that attitude when it comes to dealing with Terrorists threats and Terrorist friendly dictators like Saddam.
October 28, 2004 - 11:42 AM on October 28th, 2004
And for those with any doubts, the Duelfler Report is a NON PARTISAN investigation.
October 28, 2004 - 11:44 AM on October 28th, 2004
89: You know that, Lisa, and I know that. I’m just saying that you know how people interpret certain articles certain ways, just as they would any form of art.
Since when have leftists allowed pesky logic to stand in their way of thinking?
October 28, 2004 - 11:47 AM on October 28th, 2004
I’m not saying Saddam was not a problem that needed to be dealt with. I’m saying that this was not the best way to deal with him. I consider Iran, Saudi Arabia (15 9/11 hijackers were saudi) and North Korea to be far bigger threats.
October 28, 2004 - 11:48 AM on October 28th, 2004
Your opinion against mine, Alias. Yours is so noted
October 28, 2004 - 11:50 AM on October 28th, 2004
So you do consider those countries to be threats, Alias? Because according to Ann Coulter, there were many that didn’t see how North Korea could be such a problem until Iraq came into the picture.
October 28, 2004 - 11:51 AM on October 28th, 2004
completly off topic Lisa as a fellow webmaster who was thinking of starting a wiki/blog site similar to this (not politcally based) do you find it profitable? Or is it just a labour of love?