~DS~ writes:

1

The problem here is that so far the WH doesn't have a clue what happened. They don't know what happened, yet they're certain it wasn't there fault, LOL. Nothing is ever the WH's fault is it? Rudy Guilliani blamed it on the troops today BTW, just to show you how desperate the Bush campaign is.

Back to reality; several news sources strongly suggest that the explosives were there and that many of the bunkers were locked and sealed upon the arrival of US forces.

FOX News' Dana Lewis was with the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division when it stopped at the site on April 10 for 24 hours before continuing on to Baghdad.

"It was sealed in the sense that when we arrived, no one was inside," Lewis said, adding that there were dozens of abandoned Iraqi tanks outside the facility.
"Inside, we walked around dozens of concrete bunkers, which were still sealed. Many still had padlocks on the doors and in another part of this giant walled compound, we saw dozens and dozens of rockets, most of them damaged from air strikes."

AP Report on April 5, 2003 " UN weapons inspectors went repeatedly to the vast al Qa Qaa complex, most recently on March 8. But they found nothing during spot visits to some of the 1,100 buildings at the site 40 kilometres south of Baghdad.
Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, said troops found thousands of five-centimetre by 12-centimetre boxes, each containing three vials of white powder, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in chemical warfare. A senior U.S. official familiar with initial testing said the powder was believed to be explosives. The finding would be consistent with the plant's stated production capabilities in the field of basic raw materials for explosives and propellants." Note that HMX and RDX is a white powder...

The Iraqi Science Ministry " It is impossible that these materials could have been taken from this site before the regime's fall," said Mohammed al-Sharaa, who heads the science ministry's site monitoring department and previously worked with UN weapons inspectors under Saddam.
"The officials that were inside this facility (Al-Qaqaa) beforehand confirm that not even a shred of paper left it before the fall and I spoke to them about it and they even issued certified statements to this effect which the US-led coalition was aware of."

And now we have an insurgent claiming they have some of the stuff.

And everyone agrees the soldiers moving through did not have the manpower to search the place despite being warned repeatedly that this was one of the largest ammo depot's in iraq and a potential site for WMD's!
Good lord...We went into Iraq to look for WMD's and they didn't even have the manopwer to search, much less secure, one of the largest well known dumps in the country?
Sheesh, there could have been chemical wepoans in there and now they'd be gone also!
This is abysmal and it wraps into one neat little soundbite package all the issues which simply underscore that we went in with too few troops thanks to Rummy's 'vision' and Bush's reluctance to listen to the professional military who insisted we would need two or three times the force we used and his reliance on his 'instincts' instead. Thus this fits handily into a pattern in which the prosecution of this war by the WH has been called 'incompetent' and worse from both sides the aisle. And this is a War President? Buahahahaha! You gotta be kidding me.

posted on 10.28.2004 12:32 PM

~DS~ writes:

2

And oh yes, certainly expect some shadowey figures to step forward and claim they 'know' the explsives were moved before we got there. I wouldn't even be surprised at this point to see some dubious 'evidence' for that. And naturally regardless of how credible that evidence is, the Bush cheerleaders will swallow every word. We are after all talking about a voting base in which around %50 'believe' that not only did Saddam have something to do with 9-11, but that the findings of the Duefler reports and the 9-11 Comissions confimed that.
There's been plenty of time now for the WH to cook up a story or beg someone like Russia to cover their ass.

posted on 10.28.2004 12:38 PM

Patrick (gryph) writes:

3

Gee Joe,
That's nice and all that but what about the hundreds of other ammunition and weapons sites left unguarded? Not to mention the 30 storage sites of nuclear equipment & materials? Or a good source of equipment for the creation of Bio-weapons?

Instead of stopping WMD's from getting into the hands of terrorists, we have now actually helped faciliate the transfer of WMD equipment and materials into the hands of terrorists. Do ya think maybe the nuclear equipment ended up in Iran or Syria?

The fact that so little care was taken by this administration to safeguard such materials, in light of his stated reasons for going to war, makes Bush either a liar or grossly incompetent or both.

So since this massive dispersement of arms and weapons into the hands of terrorists occurred, are we now safer than when Bush came into office? And it looks like the insurgency in Iraq won't be running out of bullets or bombs to kill Soldiers and Marines with anytime soon.

But please, go ahead and continue to tell me how just how wonderful St. George is.

More examples of brilliant Bush Administration post-war planning.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/27/eyewitness_to_a_failure_in_iraq/

posted on 10.28.2004 12:46 PM

Larry Lord writes:

4

Patrick writes

"And it looks like the insurgency in Iraq won't be running out of bullets or bombs to kill Soldiers and Marines with anytime soon."

Or hate, thanks in substantial part to the Bush Administration's boneheaded policies with respect to the care and protection of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

posted on 10.28.2004 1:16 PM

Joe Carter writes:

5

DS: The problem here is that so far the WH doesn't have a clue what happened. They don't know what happened, yet they're certain it wasn't there fault, LOL.

How do you know that they don’t know what happened?

Back to reality; several news sources strongly suggest that the explosives were there and that many of the bunkers were locked and sealed upon the arrival of US forces.

News sources “strongly suggest?” What’s their evidence?

The Iraqi Science Ministry " It is impossible that these materials could have been taken from this site before the regime's fall," said Mohammed al-Sharaa, who heads the science ministry's site monitoring department and previously worked with UN weapons inspectors under Saddam.

If it was “impossible” then why does the UN claim that material were taken during the very time that al-Sharaa is talking about?

And now we have an insurgent claiming they have some of the stuff.

Insurgents? You will believe just about anybody if they say something that you think will hurt Bush, won’t you?

Good lord...We went into Iraq to look for WMD's and they didn't even have the manopwer to search, much less secure, one of the largest well known dumps in the country?
Sheesh, there could have been chemical wepoans in there and now they'd be gone also!

It was secured:

>Al-Qaqaa, a known Iraqi weapons site, was monitored closely, Mr. Shaw said. "That was such a pivotal location, Number 1, that the mere fact of [special explosives] disappearing was impossible," Mr. Shaw said. "And Number 2, if the stuff disappeared, it had to have gone before we got there."
The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that the Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units during the conflict. U.S. forces defeated the defenders around April 3 and found the gates to the facility open, the Pentagon said in a statement yesterday.

A military unit in charge of searching for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, then inspected Al-Qaqaa on May 8, May 11 and May 27, 2003, and found no high explosives that had been monitored in the past by the IAEA.

The Pentagon said there was no evidence of large-scale movement of explosives from the facility after April 6.

"The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd Infantry Division's arrival at the facility," the statement said.

The statement also said that the material may have been removed from the site by Saddam's regime.

This is abysmal and it wraps into one neat little soundbite package all the issues which simply underscore that we went in with too few troops thanks to Rummy's 'vision' and Bush's reluctance to listen to the professional military who insisted we would need two or three times the force we used and his reliance on his 'instincts' instead.

No offense, but this is the type of silly statement that only a civilian with no military experience could make. Iraq had so many weapons that it would have been impossible to secure them all unless we had sent every man and women in the entire military to do that job.

And oh yes, certainly expect some shadowey figures to step forward and claim they 'know' the explsives were moved before we got there.

An undersecretary at the DoD is a “shadowy figure?” Are you being serious?

I wouldn't even be surprised at this point to see some dubious 'evidence' for that. And naturally regardless of how credible that evidence is, the Bush cheerleaders will swallow every word.

In other words, it doesn’t matter if there is evidence that the Russians helped Saddam hide some weapons. The important thing is not that a member of the Security Council is helping a terrorist regime, the important thing is that the “Bush cheerleaders” might use this to their advantage. You have some seriously misplaced priorities.

There's been plenty of time now for the WH to cook up a story or beg someone like Russia to cover their ass.

Oh yeah, the Russians are going to admit that they violated international law in order to help get Bush out of a jam. Do you even think about this stuff before you write it?

Patrick: Gee Joe, That's nice and all that but what about the hundreds of other ammunition and weapons sites left unguarded? Not to mention the 30 storage sites of nuclear
equipment & materials? Or a good source of equipment for the creation of Bio-weapons?

What are you talking about, Patrick? Iraq didn’t have nuclear equipment and materials. Iraq didn’t have the capability to create bio-weapons. Iraq wasn’t even a threat. Did you forget that already?

Instead of stopping WMD's from getting into the hands of terrorists, we have now actually helped faciliate the transfer of WMD equipment and materials into the hands of terrorists. Do ya think maybe the nuclear equipment ended up in Iran or Syria?

Oh, please, stop. What are you, some kind of right-wing nutcase? Let me say again: there were no WMDs, there was no nuclear equipment, the sanctions were working, everything was fine until Bush screwed it up.

posted on 10.28.2004 1:20 PM

Jim Anderson writes:

6

What about this?

posted on 10.28.2004 1:47 PM

Terry writes:

7

DS wrote-"And now we have an insurgent claiming they have some of the stuff."
This seems to have been inspired by this story from CBS: http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/topstories_story_302103006.html
which bears the subhead "Claim Couldn't Be Independently Verified". The unknown militants provided no proof that they even knew what HMX was. And they claimed that US intelligence officers helped them get it.
In his next post DS wrote:
"I wouldn't even be surprised at this point to see some dubious 'evidence' for that. And naturally regardless of how credible that evidence is, the Bush cheerleaders will swallow every word."
If DS runs a pro-evo website, I've just become a creationist.

posted on 10.28.2004 1:48 PM

Larry Lord writes:

8

Blood of the innocent on American hands ... makes me want to puke.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=6&u=/ap/20041028/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_death_toll_4

A survey of deaths in Iraqi households estimates that as many as 100,000 more people may have died throughout the country in the 18 months after the U.S. invasion than would be expected based on the death rate before the war.

....

The survey indicated violence accounted for most of the extra deaths seen since the invasion, and air strikes from coalition forces caused most of the violent deaths, the researchers wrote in the British-based journal.

"Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children," they said.

....

To conduct the survey, investigators visited 33 neighborhoods spread evenly across the country in September, randomly selecting clusters of 30 households to sample. Of the 988 households visited, 808, consisting of 7,868 people, agreed to participate in the survey. At each one they asked how many people lived in the home and how many births and deaths there had been since January 2002.

The scientists then compared death rates in the 15 months before the invasion with those that occurred during the 18 months after the attack and adjusted those numbers to account for the different time periods.

....

Twelve of the 73 violent deaths were not attributed to coalition forces. The researchers said 28 children were killed by coalition forces in the survey households. Infant mortality rose from 29 deaths per 1,000 live births before the war to 57 deaths per 1,000 afterward.

posted on 10.28.2004 3:05 PM

Terry writes:

9

DS-
Is this the AP story you refer to?
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=2813&art_id=qw1049466428426B262&click_id=2813&set_id=1
It's hard to say because you don't give URL's to back up what you're saying. If this is the story, you seem to be accepting the when a "senior US official familiar with initial testing said the white powder was believed to be explosives." he was refering to the 380 tons the Iraqi spokesman said was missing. What in this story makes you come to that conclusion?
The theme of the story was not that explosives were left lying around for looters, the theme was that the "white powder" was initially suspected of being a nerve agent. It doesn't mention AEIA seals, details of where exactly the white powder was found, how it was packaged and stored, what size the "thousands of boxes" were, what kind of explosive it was suspected of being, the measures or lack of measures being taken to secure it, or the name of the "senior US official" who said that it was "believed to be explosives".
The link from this story to the idea that 380 tons of explosive are missing, it was looted in the aftermath of the war because of the incompetence of Rummy & Co., and the explosives are now in the hands of the insurgents is tenuous to say the least.

posted on 10.28.2004 3:07 PM

Lowell writes:

10

Joe, are you:

dishonest?

lazy?

stupid?

dishonest and lazy?

dishonest and stupid?

lazy and stupid?

or dishonest, lazy and stupid:

By WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria - The U.N. nuclear agency said Thursday it warned the United States about the vulnerability of explosives stored at Iraq (news - web sites)'s Al-Qaqaa military installation after another facility — Iraq's main nuclear complex — was looted in April 2003.

Melissa Fleming, a spokeswoman for the International Atomic Energy Agency, told The Associated Press that U.S. officials were cautioned directly about what was stored at Al-Qaqaa, the main high explosives facility in Iraq.

Some 377 tons of high explosives — HMX and RDX and PETN — are now missing from the facility, and questions have arisen about what the United States knew about Al-Qaqaa and what it did to secure the site.

Iraqi officials say the materials were taken amid looting sometime after the fall of Baghdad to U.S. forces on April 9, 2003, though the Pentagon (news - web sites) is suggesting the ordnance could have been moved by Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime before the United States invaded on March 20, 2003.

Fleming did not say which officials were notified or exactly when, but she said the IAEA — which had put storage bunkers at the site under seal just before the war — alerted the United States after the Tuwaitha nuclear complex was looted.

"After we heard reports of looting at the Tuwaitha site in April 2003, the agency's chief Iraq inspectors alerted American officials that we were concerned about the security of the high explosives stored at Al-Qaqaa," she told the AP.

"It is also important to note that this was the main high explosives storage facility in Iraq, and it was well-known through IAEA reports to the Security Council," Fleming said.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei informed the United Nations (news - web sites) in February 2003, and again in April of that year, that he was concerned about HMX explosives, which were stored at Al-Qaqaa.

The explosives' disappearance has become a flashpoint in the final week of the U.S. presidential campaign, with Democratic nominee John Kerry (news - web sites) accusing the Bush administration of ignoring the threat.

IAEA inspectors last confirmed that the agency's seals on the explosives were in place and intact in early to mid-March 2003, days before the invasion began March 20.

The IAEA sought Thursday to clarify reports that the amount of missing explosives may have been far less than what the Iraqis said in an Oct. 10 report to the nuclear agency.

ABC News, citing IAEA inspection documents, reported Wednesday night that the Iraqis had declared 141 tons of RDX explosives at Al-Qaqaa in July 2002, but that the site held only three tons when it was checked in January 2003.

The network said that could suggest that 138 tons were removed from the facility long before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

But Fleming said most of the RDX — about 125 tons — was kept at Al-Mahaweel, a storage site under Al-Qaqaa's jurisdiction located outside the main Al-Qaqaa site. She also said about 10 tons already had been reported by Iraq as having been used for non-prohibited purposes between July 2002 and January 2003.

"IAEA inspectors visited Al-Mahaweel on Jan. 15, 2003, and verified the RDX inventory by weighing sampling," Fleming said. She said the RDX at Al-Mahaweel was not under seal but was subject to IAEA monitoring.

"IAEA inspectors were in the process of verifying this statement ... and would have proceeded later had they stayed in Iraq," Fleming said. The nuclear agency's inspectors pulled out of Iraq just before the U.S.-led invasion and have not been allowed to return for general inspections despite ElBaradei's requests that they be allowed to finish their work.

The agency became involved at Al-Qaqaa because of the presence of 214 tons of HMX, which — like RDX — is a key component in plastic explosives but also can be used as an ignitor on a nuclear weapon. Fleming said it was the HMX that was the agency's main focus.

ABC said the inspection report noted that the seals at Al-Qaqaa may have been useless because the storage bunkers had ventilation slats on the sides that could have been removed to give looters access to the explosives.

But Fleming said the inspectors had also checked the ventilation slats to ensure they had not been tampered with, and that they concluded "the confinement was sufficient" as long as the site was regularly checked. They could no longer do that once they pulled out just before the invasion.

IAEA inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003 when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers. Inspectors visited the site again in March 2003, but didn't view the explosives because the seals were not broken, she said.

Agency inspectors who have returned twice to Iraq since the war focused only on Tuwaitha, a sprawling nuclear complex 12 miles south of Baghdad.

In June 2003, inspectors investigated reports of widespread looting of storage rooms at Tuwaitha, and they returned in August 2003 to take inventory of several tons of natural uranium that had been stored there. They have not been allowed back to Al-Qaqaa.

posted on 10.28.2004 3:30 PM

~DS~ writes:

11

Yeah Tuwaitha is the next shoe in line to drop. Apparently there is a report out by Wokies assistant that our guys were not briefed about nuclear materials at Tuwaitha, again well known and documented under seal, and were nearby when Iraqi's broke into the place and took stuff. A lot of stuff is allegedly missing. If this turns out to be accurate, it's probably going to be the end for the WH. This kind of thing might get you thrown out of office even withuot an election. We're talking about stuff under IAEA seal again here which could be used to make a feaking atomic bomb. I'm going to give the WH the benefit of the doubt on this until I know more. I really can't, or don't want to, believe their incompetence runs this deep.

posted on 10.28.2004 3:43 PM

Larry Lord writes:

12

DS

"I really can't, or don't want to, believe their incompetence runs this deep."

After knowing that Bush was given a memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack US" which described the use of planes as weapons, in response to the Administration's request for such a memo, and Bush's response to the memo was to take the longest vacation in presidential history ... anything is possible. Indeed, just look at the corpse-ridden path this incompetent little man and his yes-men (and yes-women) took us down.

posted on 10.28.2004 4:22 PM

Joe Carter writes:

13

Lowell,

dishonest, lazy and stupid:

Yes, Lowell I'm so dishonest that I purposely ignore the evidence for...no, wait, that's what you do. Oh well, I am so lazy that I cut and paste entire articles rather than make an argum...no wait, that's you too. I'm also so stupid that I believe as absolute truth anything that the AP says. No, wait, I guess, that's you also, huh?

And I guess I'm also the one that is stupid enough to believe that "looters" stole over 150 tons of explosive. These "looters", of course, would have needed about 40 5-ton trucks, special trolleys, forklifts, handling experts, and drivers skilled in explosives. But this is all possible because...the UN said so?

Yeah, I'm the stupid one.

posted on 10.28.2004 4:25 PM

Mr. Moderate writes:

14

I'm also so stupid that I believe as absolute truth anything that the AP say

No Joe, you reserve that honor for the Bush administration and their media hacks over at WorldNetDaily and NewsMax/CNSNews.

posted on 10.28.2004 4:32 PM

~DS~ writes:

15

I just don't want to think about the possibility of the nuke stuff Larry and besides, I don't know what all they took. The election is stressful enough.

posted on 10.28.2004 4:52 PM

Larry Lord writes:

16

Joe, here's some video stills for you to contemplate

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

You wrote

"I'm also the one that is stupid enough to believe that "looters" stole over 150 tons of explosive. These "looters", of course, would have needed about 40 5-ton trucks, special trolleys, forklifts, handling experts, and drivers skilled in explosives."

Please. You make it sound like some "Wages of Fear" operation (ever seen Clouzot's movie -- an existential materpiece!!!!). Are you sure that a 2 or 3 ton truck couldn't handle one of those barrels? Do you doubt that there are thousands of such trucks in Iraq? Do you doubt that there are Iraqi drivers and forklift operators skilled in handling explosives? How do you think the explosives got there in the first place???????

posted on 10.28.2004 4:58 PM

tgirsch writes:

17

Joe:

These "looters", of course, would have needed about 40 5-ton trucks, special trolleys, forklifts, handling experts, and drivers skilled in explosives. But this is all possible because...the UN said so?

No, it's all possible because David Kay says so. :)

Seriously, this is getting a lot more attention than I think it deserves. For Kerry's supporters, it's not needed to push their case that there weren't enough troops sent to Iraq, because there are even administration officials on record saying that much. For Bush's supporters, it's just as embarrassing, because the administration keeps changing its story on this, and giving contradictory answers.

But I do have one pet peeve:

Why does the need to get the “scoop” take precedence over getting the whole story?

I would swear that not all that long ago, you and I had a debate in which I chided the media for not getting the story straight, and I swear you argued that expecting the media to do fact checking was too much to ask from them. Now you're complaining that they didn't, uh, do fact checking? Imagine that!

posted on 10.28.2004 5:12 PM

Larry Lord writes:

18

"For Kerry's supporters, it's not needed to push their case that there weren't enough troops sent to Iraq, because there are even administration officials on record saying that much."

Ah, yes, Tom, but what about our unassailable "generals on the ground"? ;)

They were never denied additional troops when they asked for them, were they?

The problem is not only the insufficient troops, but also the bone-headed way in which the planning for the invasion was unnecessarily rushed by Bush and his bloodthirsty soldier boys, anxious to practice their new toys on some non-Christians who don't speak English as their first language.

Remember, originally things were supposed to be proceeding much more smoothly. In Rove's fantasy circa September 12, 2001, Bush now would be looked upon as a great all-knowing "liberator" by Iraqis, who would be hailed throughout the Western world as a proud Arabic Democracy, and who would be elected in a landslide.

Dream on, brothers.

posted on 10.28.2004 5:30 PM

~DS~ writes:

19

The eyewitness 5 video showing explosives in situ at Al Qaqa is now up. http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

The station is owned by staunch republicans and appears legitimate. From the tape "The soldiers tooks us to bunker after bunker of holding high explosives many of which were locked" The date was allegedly April 18, 2003, after the fall of Bahgdad. Positions were said to be confiemef with GPA tracker. This is considered very powerful evidence the explosives, or at least a whole bunch of bunkers full of explosives, were there folks through the invasion and the fall of the Ba'athist Regime.

It was noted that Bush did not mention the explosives or make any specific allegations concerning Kerry's 'wild accusations' today and it's attributed to the President being made aware of this evidence.
In addition another story has surfaced concerning the Tuwaitha Nuclear storage facility which is said to also have been heavily looted after the fall of all kinds of nuclear material which had also been under IEAE seal. These allegations wre made by Peter Galbraith, a former ambassador who reported to Paul Wolfowitz. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/27/eyewitness_to_a_failure_in_iraq/
I don't want to sound overly happy that it now appears that tons of high explosives and indeed nuclear materials have fallen into the hand sof potential enemies due to DoD negligence. That's nothing to be happy about becuase if it's true it's undoubtably costing coalition and Iraqi lives and could put the nation in peril down the raod. But seriously, but I do have to ask those who still feel this war has been well conducted, what level of evidence would it take for you to reconsider?

posted on 10.28.2004 5:37 PM

JBP writes:

20

DS

Incompetent? We take out a whole nation and lose a little over a 1000 troops and Bush is incompetent.

Yes, Bush and the military have made mistakes, but no one is going to prosecute a war without making mistakes. It is an old military adage that no plan survives initial contact with the enemy. You seem to fault Bush for not being perfect. I have news for you Kerry will not be perfect either!

I will give you an example of incompetence. John Kerry fought in the Vietnam war. Did you know that John Kerry has been inducted into the Communist's Vietnam war museum as someone who "helped them win the war." The last time Kerry prosecuted a war, his enemies cheered!

No wonder one of the world's leading terrorists has endorsed Kerry!

posted on 10.28.2004 6:40 PM

Larry Lord writes:

21

JBP writes

"Incompetent? We take out a whole nation and lose a little over a 1000 troops and Bush is incompetent."

Not to diminish the deaths of a 1000 teenage and twenty-something soldiers (a number that continues to grow at a steady rate), but is that really all the US lost as a result of our invasion of Iraq?

posted on 10.28.2004 7:28 PM

tgirsch writes:

22

JBP:

See, that's where you're simply not looking at the big picture. We did not "take out an entire nation." We bumped off a hamstrung regime. And the incompetence lies not in taking Baghdad but in our utter and complete unpreparedness for what came next.

These people (the Bush Administration) have shown me nothing that gives me any sort of confidence that they know how to keep the peace in Iraq. Unless you think 53 deaths per day is a reasonable approximation of "keeping the peace."

posted on 10.28.2004 7:28 PM

~DS~ writes:

23

JBP let's try and stay focused on 2004 here. (Although point of fact, anyone who helped end Vietnam saved lives on both sides as well as sparing our POW's additoinal mistreatment and avoiding additional deaths fighting a hopeless conflict which oretty much everyone now agrees had little to do with our interests)

I don't actually blame the incompetence on directly on Bush in terms of the post war foul ups. I'm not under the illusion that Bush was out there with an M-16 calling the play-by-play.

That was Rumsfeld's doing. Rummy has never worn a uniform and has never had specific training in military tactics. Nevertheless he felt qualified to over ride and indeed ridicule those who did hold those qualificatiosn when they insisted that we'd need 3-4 times as many troops as his plan called for. (Reportedly he wanted to go in with as little as 40,000 in some versions) and sadly the President listened to him.

He's been talking and writing about this small force concept for some time, Bush bought it, and the result is foul ups like Al Qaqqa and Tuwaitha, not to mention many more ammo dumps you haven't heard about and about everything else that wasn't nailed down. The direct result of that bad call has been to piss off the Iraqi general population, drastically increase the costs to repair infrastructure, and to arm terrorists with tons of explsoives and weapons of all kinds.
Had Bush canned Rummy and taken a new course in iraq I might have been persuaded to give huim anotther chance. But despite the perfect opportunity during Abu Ghraib to let Rummy go, Bush did not choose to do so. That was a huge mistake and it tells me the President cannot make the tough decision to put the interest of the nation over his own personal friendships. When asked several times if he had any mistakes, the President has said flat out "No'. That's unacceptable and again bespeaks a dangerous inability to learn that any leader, hell any owner of a Wendy's Franchise or someone over age 17, should be able to do.

Now the post war foul up is a seperate issue from the fact that the reason given for the invasion, WMD's and links to AQ/911, have been shown so far at least to not exist. The sanctions it turns out were working, the intel such as the Niger uranium docs and aluminum tubes were known to be highly questionable, and most of the bio wepoans crap was coming from Achmed Chalabi, a known and wanted internmational con man who, it turns out, is an iranian operative. That's incompetence and it's unacceptable imo.

The cost so far? It's looking like it will be near 200 billion by the end of this year, our allies whom we depend on to some extant to help us on all kind sof matters are soured, our deficit is at record levels and the largest portion therein is being financed by communist China. The worst part is we're closing in on 10,000 US GI's KIA's and WIA's.

Yes, invading a country for what turns out to be errorneous reasons and screwing up to the tune of 200 billion and thousands of casualties could be termed an honest mistake. And I don't think President purposely decieved the American people. I think he got real crappy advice. But excuses don't matter in the major leagues, that's grounds for a reaosnable man like myself, who originally voted for Bush and supported this war, to fire the guys in charge. As Bush is unwilling to kake those changes, the best I can do is fire the Presdient to get them all.

posted on 10.28.2004 7:36 PM

BCB writes:

24

Here's video showing the suspect material present when the 101st arrived:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20041028/ts_nm/iraq_explosives_abc_dc

And what about Gulliani blaming it all on the troops. What a dick!

Nevertheless, you guys are doing a great job of muddying the waters just enough so that Bush can get away with yet another tremendous screw up.

posted on 10.28.2004 8:08 PM

~DS~ writes:

25

It's tought to call the headline tomorrow but you can bet the B/C campaign is in big, big trouble. Will it be Haliburton no bid contracts under FBI criminal investigation
with a senior administration official involved? or will it be
UN Weapons Inspectors have confirmed the material shown in the video is HMX.

Here's the latest on the latter:

ABC News: Oct. 28, 2004 — The strongest evidence to date indicates that conventional explosives missing from Iraq's Al-Qaqaa installation disappeared after the United States had taken control of Iraq.

Barrels inside the Al-Qaqaa facility appear on videotape shot by ABC television affiliate KSTP of St. Paul, Minn., which had a crew embedded with the 101st Airborne Division when it passed through Al-Qaqaa on April 18, 2003 — nine days after Baghdad fell.

Experts who have studied the images say the barrels on the tape contain the high explosive HMX, and the U.N. markings on the barrels are clear.
"I talked to a former inspector who's a colleague of mine, and he confirmed that, indeed, these pictures look just like what he remembers seeing inside those bunkers," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.

The barrels were found inside sealed bunkers, which American soldiers are seen on the videotape cutting through. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency sealed the bunkers where the explosives were kept just before the war began.

"The seal's critical," Albright said. "The fact that there's a photo of what looks like an IAEA seal means that what's behind those doors is HMX. They only sealed bunkers that had HMX in them."

After the bunkers were opened, the 101st was not ordered to secure the facility. A senior officer told ABC News the division would not have had nearly enough soldiers to do so.

It remains unclear how much HMX was at the facility, but what does seem clear is that the U.S. military opened the bunkers at Al-Qaqaa and left them unguarded. Since then, the material has disappeared.

posted on 10.28.2004 8:24 PM

shawn writes:

26

TIME OUT!!!!!!!
Let's ask a simple question. Is it really the place of the President/Commander In Cheif, to know what is going on at all times in every corner of the GLOBAL War on Terriorism,assuming it is even physically possible even today?
Answer NO!
It is not possible even today, nor would it be helpful.
I hate to draw comparisons to Vietnam, since that seems to be John Kerry's job,(meow). But for all of you on the left with very short memories the last president we had who tried to micromanage a war was Lyndon Johnson. In fact Senator Kerry spent most of his time under the command of President Johnson, not Nixon. In Johnsons defense he learned about war under the tutalge of Douglas MacAuther, one of the great all time micro managers.
Anyone with the slightest knowlege of history and especially military history knows how it works best.
The supreme ruler picks his top general and gives him a political goal. That general picks his best captains and lays out a battle plan that best realizes that goal. The captains go out and put that plan into action, where it promtly goes to s**t, and they hope the sargents can improvise a way out. If you have good sargents you win.
Frankly Senator Kerry is an idiot for setting this sort of standard, because God Forbid he wins he then has to live up to a goal no human ever has. If I didn't believe it would cost civilian lives I'd almost wish the poor sod would win and laugh as he twists slowly in the wind.

posted on 10.28.2004 8:30 PM

Larry Lord writes:

27

"Frankly Senator Kerry is an idiot for setting this sort of standard, because God Forbid he wins he then has to live up to a goal no human ever has."

I guess some of us are nostalgic for the times when people pretended to a have a standard, such as a standard for determining when it's okay to engage in a nation-building fantasy that kills 100,000 innocent civilians where the standard amounts to a little more than "we don't trust your leader."

posted on 10.28.2004 8:37 PM

Alan writes:

28

Joe,
A couple of things you have missed.

1) The IAEA person who leaked this, did so just a few days after the US came forward and said that it was against renewing his role as Head of the IAEA. El Baradei even vouched for the incorrect figures in the document he leaked...

2) If the US was not looking for WMD , they would have blown this ammo dump up asap...As it was they were looking for stuff they thought was there...

3) CBS was planning on holding this till sunday night...Talk about trying to influence the election.

4) Isn't it amazing that Saddam supported terrorists and had these explosives (not the mention the dozens of tons of the stuff that went missing under the UN's nose), and they were not a threat, but now the media et al is playing this 380 tons as a huge threat (ignoring the 599700 tons of explosives that have not disappeared) because terrorists might have them...

http://www.truthlaidbear.com/index.php has a big roundup of info...

posted on 10.28.2004 9:20 PM

Mark O writes:

29

Larry,
"kills 100,000 civilians. Source, please? The numbers I saw (pointed out by the folks at "lean left") figured more like 15,000. You're off by an order of magnitude.

Doesn't a 5cm by 12cm bottle weigh about 2-4 pounds. "Thousands" of them, doesn't get to 400 tons. More like 1 or 2.

I still am a little confused by the kerfuffle over this. There were by accounts I read there were over 10,000 sites spread over Iraq containing some 400,000 to 600,000 tons of munitions and high explosives. You are all too wrapped up in your animus against the WH that you think this is a big deal. Recall that a shooting war was still going on during this time. If this all that was stolen that makes less than 1 part in 1000 during the time that a shooting war was going on. Please a little reality check would help.

And if you go on about needing "more troops" and "more allies" I don't buy it without some reasonable arguments on your part. It seems to me that more troops means more staging time, more logistical headaches, less mobility (which means the whole campaign would take longer), more time for Saddam to get his act together, more casualties on both sides, and more cost. More allies means more poorly trained troops on the battlefield, more strain on CCC, more egos to assuage, which again would lead to more casulaties and more cost. Remind me again how that would be better. Unless failure is your preferred outcome.

Kerry reminds me of McClellan from a previous war. Always more allies, more time, more equipment, and protect our soldiers, bah, I think if a shooting war came up, he'd never get off the pot to join the fight.

Finally, I haven't watched this on any network news, how is al-Qaaqa pronounced? Is it really hard for those newsmen to keep talking about this with a straight face (especially if they have kids)? Would it be better with s Spanish flair, el-CaCa?

posted on 10.28.2004 9:20 PM

~DS~ writes:

30

I've heard it as Ca-ca Mark. Like the spanish word for crap.
The damage that Al Qaqa does politically is two fold. First you have here a fairly simple example for most folks to understand of why many of us have questioned the lack of a post war plan and pointed out Rummy's insistance on his 'light force vision' over what seasoned professionals advised as rocl solid example of why this particular admin is incompetent.

The second problem politically is right up until this morning we had Blogs and commentators trying to lay this on everyone from saddam to the Russians, the Presdient laughing and ridiculing Kerry for 'jumping to wild conclusions' and so forth, and now they look really, really, bad.

It reinforces the perception that the B/C admin simply can't accept responsbility for anything; and in fact Giulliani tried to lay it on the troops for chrisake while at the same time other officials were accusing Kerry of being 'mean' to the troops and oddly while the admin was still holding onto the now discredited story that it was moved prior to the war. So they're not only cornered by the facts this time, they're hung out to dry on their own spin and disconnected inconsistent attempts to lay it on someone else.
And both these cut right to the core of Bush's perceieved strengths of truthfulness and leadership in the WoT. Perhaps another story will break that'll help change the topic though, you never know. But for those of you who are beilevers, you might want to consider that all this might just be the man upstairs trying to tell you something.

posted on 10.28.2004 9:40 PM

Mark O writes:

31

~DS~,
I understand the political mishmash, but what I don't understand is why it is an issue at all. From what I read it is a drop in the bucket during a shooting war. I don't think anyone should "accept responsibility" for anything in this affair. It's being blown way out of proportion.

And it's not like anyone has convincingly made the case that "more troops" would have helped alleviate the fog and confusion in war. In fact, I've made a case to the contrary that seems convincing to me.

I also fail to see the motivation for your insistence that anyone "admit" they made mistakes. In terms of "realpolitik", what's it buy you? What's the cost? I would have thought that everyone knows everyone makes mistakes. What's your point. You seem to want Rumfeld's ass on a platter for this. Rumfeld's "light force vision" worked in Afghanistan didn't it? And, I think the execution of the war in Iraq as well will be seen as a textbook example of what to do, not the reverse. However, I suspect neither of us are military experts, so we will have to wait 10 years until the fever pitch of the election has waned before cooler heads can pass judgement.

Finally, when you say, "now they look really, really, bad". I think you too are jumping the gun. Certainly the facts are not yet clear on this issue. Except perhaps the statistical insignificance of the amount of HMX in the first place compared to the number of munitions dumps and amount in those caches placed throughout the region.

posted on 10.28.2004 10:37 PM

C3 writes:

32

sorry for the type-o (s)...
I meant: " so willing to buy the plate of..."

posted on 10.29.2004 6:26 AM

~DS~ writes:

33

C3, I didn't have anything to do with why they were allowed to keep that stuff under seal, you're asking the wrong guy. But the reason it's important this stuff wasn't secured has to do with competence.

Let's say I hire a guy to paint the inside of my house. He comes in with turpentine and paint smoking a cigarette. I point out to him that I don't think it's a good idea to use turpentine while he's smoking a cigarette and that traditionally, that's not a good idea based on past experience. He tells me I don't know what I'm talking about ... and then proceeds to set my kitchen on fire. I'm probably not going to want him to move on to painting the den right?
And even if I was thinking about giving him a second chance, and he told me he didn't do make any mistakes in the kitchen, that the kitchen went 'remarkably well' in his opinion, and further stated was planning on 'staying the course' in the den and smoking cigarettes while he uses turpentine in there, I'm looking for a new painter. It doesn't matter how nice a guy he is or how much I like him. Make sense?

Now that the painter has been shown to be incompetent and dangerously so, and I've decided to use someone else, a neighbor who 'likes the painter' because he's a fellow member of the Moose Lodge asks me what the hell my problem is. I explain it to him, show him the burnt kitchen and outline the fact that the painter was unwilling to admit a mistake or even willing to stop smoking in my house while he uses turpentine. And my neighbor says "That kitchen looks remarkably good You just HATE the painter. Your BIASED against Moose Lodge members!"

posted on 10.29.2004 7:21 AM

Mark O writes:

34

~DS~

I think your analogy would be better if you were the smoker and you for some reason keep 5000 gallons of paint thinner around the house. The painter comes in, cleans out but misses a thimbleful of thinner. So you start bitching about it. Telling everyone he's got to the worst damn painter ever. And you know, with your smoking habit, that's got to be a fire hazard. So you want that painter's boss and and everyone his boss knows to get fired pronto.

posted on 10.29.2004 8:58 AM

Kevin W writes:

35

One thing we all can be sure of. If John Kerry were in the White House for the past two years, Saddam Hussein would still be there, the uranium would still be there, the ammo dumps would still be there, and the Iraqi "Oil for Food" bribery program would still be in effect, paying France and Russia to run interference for Hussein at the UN.

There's no disagreement about that, right?

That the Leftist candidate would have done nothing about banned weapons? Would have sat by while Hussein continued to build a nuclear program--funny how the Left now blames Bush for losing uranium, when just last week they said there was no uranium to lose because Hussein was in compliance with UN mandates. Yes, he would have, because John Kerry is beholden to the opinions of foreign governments over those of the American people.

I'm getting tired of the mental acrobatics I have to perform to keep up with the flip flops of the Far Left, and their communist candidate.

posted on 10.29.2004 9:29 AM

~DS~ writes:

36

Correct Kevin. Saddam would still be in power. His WMD scientists would still be under his control and unlikely to sell their knowledge freely. Soemwhere between 20,000 and 100,000 Iraqi's, many of them women and children, would still be alive. Over 1100 of our troops would be alive, several thousand would still have all their limbs or their eyes or the use of their legs. We'd have 200 billion dollars we could be using to fight against terrorism. Our allies would be our full partner in hunting down and capturing Al Qaeda. The explosives from Al Qaqqa would still be under UN Seal instead of god knows where being used against us. The nuclear materials in Tuwaitha would still be under seal instead of God only knows where. And George Bush would be an airtight lock in this election. Wish we shoulda coulda.
Mark I can't explain it any clearer than that analogy. If you wish to play word games rather than aknowledge the shortcomings of thie WH in regard to iraq, I've done all I can to help you understand.
You're generally one of the most rational reasonable people on this forum, so I'm puzzled why in this instance you seem to insist of apologizing for shoddy work on the part of the WH as if you were somehow emotionally invested in those individuals.

posted on 10.29.2004 10:51 AM

~DS~ writes:

37

I see the Pentagon will shortly be holding a press conference in which they're supposedly going to state they that a soldier from the 1st ID destroyed a few tons of the stuff.
So the DoD has come a long long way in one week eh?
1. Ignoring the issue to
2. We don't know what happened and neither does anyone else ->
3. It's a UN set up ->
4. Claiming the stuff was taken by Saddam before the war ->
5. The Russians took it->
6. Ok it was there but it's not very important->
8. It was the troops fault->
9. Hey! We really destroyed it and we didn't know ahead of time how much was there ebcause there's some debate over that!

Any guesses on what excuse number 10 will be? I'll give everuone here 100:1 odds that excuse number 10 will not "OK we screwed up"

posted on 10.29.2004 11:15 AM

C3 writes:

38

Ummm, Yeah DS. . .
That is probably it!
10. Our troops already destroyed it, along with the other 99.5% of the munitions we found in over 10 tousand (similalrly named: CACA) dumps.

Still want to blame the home team though, don't you?
You are a real piece of work.
Don't you get it yet? - (using your analogy) -You shouldn't have any paint left. Any paint you are using on your house - you retained illegally. Your Home Owners Association-(ironically named the UN) was supposed to take it away from you... But you somehow you were able to weasel your way into keeping 100's of thousands of tons of paint (did you pay them off?). What the hell were you going to use all of that paint for, DS?
Were you by chance going to have the meanest, ugliest, ex-cons paint the whole country?
And by the way, the color you picked was "communist red"... or maybe that's "pink"-o fascist... I can't tell from here - the satellite picture of your house is a bit fuzzy.
Do you get it yet?

posted on 10.29.2004 11:57 AM

~DS~ writes:

39

Funny C3, on another thread several of the war supporters were arguing that a couple of old coroded sarin shells were worth the entire thing ebcuase ANY weopan is deadly in the wrong hands. The good old double standard eh?

I have no desire to get into a flame war with you (And I think I'd reduce you to tears on a level playing field), how about a straight answer to an honest question? What does a leader and his advisors need to do in a war before you would feel their tactics are counterproductive and that some or all them need to be replaced?

posted on 10.29.2004 12:14 PM

Kevin W writes:

40

"The nuclear materials in Tuwaitha would still be under seal instead of God only knows where."

***

Wait a minute. First of all, going into Iraq was a mistake because there was no nuclear program. Now, going into Iraq was a mistake because Saddam Hussein would still be in charge of the nuclear program, instead of letting the materials and the scientists go "God only knows where."

I don't get it. Yes I do, actually: you guys on the Left believe that George Bush needs to be replaced, but that Saddam Hussein doesn't. And that's fine, it's just that most Americans don't agree with you.

posted on 10.29.2004 12:28 PM

Terry writes:

41

DS-
You ask a lot of questions. How about answering one? Given the following actions by the US in WW2 when would you have demanded a change in administrations? Or would you have given them a pass?
-Failed to foresee the attack on Pearl Harbor: 2,500 US casualties
-Concentration of resources on the European Theatre though Germany had never attacked the US mainland
-MacArthur's doomed retreat to Mindanao
-The disastrous landing at Dieppe in 1942 (3000+ casualties)
-The April 1944 practice D-Day landing in England that was attacked by U boats (600 US dead)
-The firebombong of Dresden by US & Brits (100,000+ civilians dead)
-Dropping Atomic bombs on two militarily insignificant Japanese cities (150,000 civilians dead)

posted on 10.29.2004 1:35 PM

Larry Lord writes:

42

Mark O

To answer your question, see my post at 3:05 yesterday.

Or

http://www.newsisfree.com/iclick/i,58749448,1440,f/

And rather than attack and deny, why not just contemplate?

Why is it so many evangelicals here refuse to acknowledge the deaths of innocent that were the inevitable result of our invasion of Iraq? Why is it so many evangelicals here refuse to acknowledge that the number of innocent Iraqi people killed and crippled by at the hands of coalition forces dwarfs the number of innocent people killed and crippled by the 19 terrorists on 9/11, NONE OF WHOM WERE IRAQI AND NONE OF WHOM HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME, other than being Arabic?

Why is that? Who has the guts to explain why they never lament the innocent babies killed by the coalition forces they cheers for? Who has the guts to explain why those innocent deaths are justified but the use of stem cell lines to save human lives are not?

posted on 10.29.2004 2:28 PM

~DS~ writes:

43

Terry I'd draw the line at something like "White House Penetrated by German agents and attacked Peru by mistake based on faulty Intel and spoon fed by the German Agents while letting Hitler run amok" for example.

Kevin those materials had been confiscated. Why they left them there I don't know, but had Saddam tried to use them that good ole Oil for Food Program that you bemoan would have ceased to exist amd apparently Saddam didn't want that to happen. IOW, those sanctions were working. Now hoever they're who knows where although the best bet is the Iranians got them. The WH's buddy Chalabi again. I wonder just what level of damage he really did to US safety?

Anyway, on a purely abstract level: What kind[s] of mistake[s] does it take in any DoD before you folks would like to see a replacement and a change of tactics?

posted on 10.29.2004 2:30 PM

Sammy writes:

44

i think it would be a sin to vote for President Bush. I have seen the photographs of Iraqi children killed in this war. THey were probably Muslim children, but Jesus willingly died to bring salvation to the unsaved. I don't believe God loves American children more than he loves Iraqi children. I don't believe God wanted any less for those children to have the chance to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. But the President started this war for suspicious reasons and now these little children are dead. I cannot in good conscience vote to keep him in office. On top of that, I have read that the women in his life that he says he admires and listens to, his wife, and his mother, are pro -choice. I have talked about this with the other wives in my Bible study group and a lot of us agree that we can't vote for this man. We are going to stay home on November 2, since there is no pro-life candidate this election. I hope God has mercy on our nation, whatever the outcome.

posted on 10.29.2004 2:47 PM

~DS~ writes:

45

Sammy I think you're a credit to the pro-life movement. I don't agree with the pro-life stance on abortion. But stipulating that fetuses and embryos are people, your stance is the only logically consistent one possible imo. If one is value human life as divine in or out of the womb, then it seems fairly straightforward to me that such a judgement extends to the already born as well as the unborn.

posted on 10.29.2004 3:13 PM

Jeff writes:

46

I found this video of Bush "giving the finger,' while being used for political purposes, to be somewhat disturbing. http://static.vidvote.com/movies/bushuncensored.mov

Is Bush really the Christian he claims to be?

posted on 10.29.2004 3:18 PM

~DS~ writes:

47

Translation on latest Osama tape coming soon folks, some excerpts "Your security is not in the hands of Bush or Kerry or even Al Qaeada, your security is in your own hands." "We won't attack you if you don't attack us" and a jab at Bush for "Freezing up reading a childrens story about a goat while 9-11 took place" or something like that.

posted on 10.29.2004 3:22 PM

C3 writes:

48

DS writes:
"What does a leader and his advisors need to do in a war before you would feel their tactics are counterproductive and that some or all them need to be replaced?"

Ummmm.
1) Lose that said war.
2) Cut and Run
3) Not know what position to take on that said war.
4) Not have any clarity on what it would take to win that war.
5) Weaken our troops by siding with the enemies.
6) Not fund our troops when they most need it.
7) Doing everything to undermine the moral of the troops in combat.

I think that should give you enough to play with DS.

By the way DS... I'm already reduced to tears by your anti-American stance and your pro-UN stance. . .

Maybe you can to answer a question DS. . .
With the new video tape of Osama Bin Laden being broadcast on your beloved "Al Jazeera", given what he said,
if you were John Kerry (President Elect) would you:
a) give in to the demands of the terrorist-(Osama) and cut and run?
b) stay in Iraq, defeat the insurgents, and help stabalize the situation?
c) hunt down and kill Osama(now that we know for sure that he is still alive?
d) play like France, put your tail between your legs and scurry home - and hope that the terrorists don't come over here again to kill more of us?

Just please try to be specific in your answers... I know, I know... Kerry wouldn't be specific in his. But just pretend that he would be, and take it from there.

Good luck! I'll be sitting here crying on your level playing field and awaiting your insightful response.

posted on 10.29.2004 3:51 PM

tgirsch writes:

49

Hey, Joe, you'd better get about the business of discrediting David Kay.

posted on 10.29.2004 3:51 PM

me writes:

50

Media bias is the real issue in this campaign's October Surprise. Its all in how you FRAME the question!

The media and even Republicans are asking the wrong questions about the missing weapons material.

Instead of focusing on whether they were there before the war or after, the better questions for the media are:

1) If Bush had NOT went in at all, HOW MUCH HCX/weapons munitions would be missing? 100%!!! Is the glass half full or half empty? The Dems are focusing on the latter. Republicans need to focus on the former. The troops have found alot MORE than the amount said to have been lost since the invasion. We would have no control over ANY of it, plus Saddam would be in direct position to sell those materials to terrorist groups, if there was no Iraq war. It is like blaming the fire department for rushing to a fire of a neighborhood, and blaming them or the fire department chief for incompetence after they save most of the neighborhood but lose one house to the fire. If they did not fight it at all, 100% of the houses are lost! Whether the job of guarding them was perfect or not, not going in, Kerry's favored position, a wrong war wrong time wrong place, cannot improve the safety of anyone relative to going in, missing some, and garnering tons more AND removing Hussein!

2) Since HMX and many of the fabled munitions WERE classified as WMD by the United Nations, the missing point is that the media all along argued no WMD existed, so the war was built on lies, but obviously if these could have been used to build WMD, and were in and of themseleves classified as such *BY* the UN, Bush's Iraq argument has been proven, there were WMD's in Iraq! Why is the media ignoring this? Kerry is proving by admitting those weapons were there to be used by terrorists on Americans and the world that Iraq and Saddam *WAS* a threat worth removing, ASAP!

3) Did the United Nations try to control our election by helping dump this October Surprise? Is that fair? What about CBS, who last time dropped phony documents on us, and this time planned to run this story without giving Bush a fair chance to respond on Sunday night, October 31? This 100% negative against Bush painting of issues by making them be repeated again and again, like Abu Grahib, is unfair to Bush. Does anyone believe this all is happening by accident? Now old Halliburton charges are the top story, the Terrorist video threatening us all is looked at for a few seconds, and dropped. Could it be that that "story" would help Bush and these others hurt him? Why are there literally NO bad stories on Kerry? With tons of arguments against him from Vietnam era issues on down the line, the whole issue is ignored. For several elections, 100% of the "scandals" are against Republican candidates, from the 92 surprise on Bush 41 Weinberger indictments, to the DWI in 2000, but none on Clinton in either campaign, none on Gore and none on Kerry! What gives? Republicans should DEMAND balance and fairness and argue the media is doing another CBS type fiasco...

posted on 10.29.2004 3:53 PM

~DS~ writes:

51

C3 Osama bin Laden, appearing healthy as a horse, just appeared on tape speaking directly to the American people. I'll bet you 10,000 dollars he wasn't speaking from Iraq.

"I truly am not that concerned about him[Osama]. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country." Bush 2002

posted on 10.29.2004 3:55 PM

C3 writes:

52

I'm sorry DS...
I don't get what you are saying.
Was Osama speaking the same as a presidential address to you? You seem ecstatic that he appeared so healthy.

Can you just answer some of the questions from my previous post. Or are you pulling a kerry here?

posted on 10.29.2004 4:10 PM

C3 writes:

53

One other question DS/Kerry:

Is Osama on the DNC campaign trail?

Between Osama and Clinton I think you guys have this thing won... Good to see the Democratic party looking so good and healthy.

You all work together so well... Like ying and yang.

posted on 10.29.2004 4:15 PM

~DS~ writes:

54

C3 I'm extremely pissed off that he's even alive, let alone healthy you idiot. I lost eight good friends and some co-workers in 9-11. Osama is thought to be in the Pakistan/Afghani border...And...we're fighting in Iraq?
And what's even stranger is you're defending that we're in Iraq with all your might and hoping to re-elect the guy who said he's 'not concerned about Osama'! Am I getting through to you?

posted on 10.29.2004 4:16 PM

Joe Carter writes:

55

Tgirsch,

Hey, Joe, you'd better get about the business of discrediting David Kay.

Discrediting Kay over what? His claim that Saddam moved WMD's to Syria? (I'm sure you believe Kay is credible on that, right?)

Or are you now saying that this counts as Saddam having WMDs since that is what Kay claims? (I'm sure Kay has changed your mind, right?)

As for "Game. Set. Match" I think that Kay's contention that the military was there is backed up by the Army Major who says that his unit was there destroying the munitions.

Sometimes you make it too easy. ; )

posted on 10.29.2004 4:19 PM

~DS~ writes:

56

Joe the lengths you will go to protect the bumblers in the WH is sometimes breathtaking. Kay was commenting on video shot by a news crew showing the weapons in situ...sheesh.

So now you've gone from:
1. You can't prove it to
2. the UN is setting Bush up
3. Saddam moved them to
4. The Russians moved them to
5. We destroyed them

How about sticking with one bogus excuse long enough to pretend at least to have a shred of credibility?

posted on 10.29.2004 4:31 PM

Joe Carter writes:

57

DS,

I'm extremely pissed off that he's even alive, let alone healthy you idiot.

While I personally wouldn't mind seeing OBL meet his Creator and have no qualms about the US helping to speed up that process, I think the longer he remains alive the more it hurts al Queda. The longer he hides like a coward the more his potential followers will see that he is nothign but a coward and a fraud. The fact that we have only heard from him twice in the past two years shows that he's more concerned about saving his own skin than he is about the "Jihad."

When he is dead -- and I think that will be coming soon -- he will become a martyr and be seen as a greater hero than he is now. So while I don't like the fact that he is still breathing I think he is in the same position that Hitler was before he killed himself: more valuable to us alive than dead.

posted on 10.29.2004 4:31 PM

~DS~ writes:

58

Yeah it's great having him alive and threatening us Joe ...I bet Al Qaeda is about to disband just knowing he's still walking the Earth. We're lucky huh?

posted on 10.29.2004 4:44 PM

Joe Carter writes:

59

Joe the lengths you will go to protect the bumblers in the WH is sometimes breathtaking. Kay was commenting on video shot by a news crew showing the weapons in situ...sheesh.

I don’t recall hearing that anyone from the White House was in Al Quqaa so by “bumblers” I assume you are referring to the U.S. military.

So now you've gone from:
1. You can't prove it to

When did I say that?

2. the UN is setting Bush up

If by UN you mean Mohamed ElBaradei then yes, I still stand by that. If the weapons were discovered missing in September 2003, then why are we just now hearing about it a week before the election?

3. Saddam moved them to

Saddam removed at least 32 tons that we know about. Why shouldn’t we assume that he moved even more?

4. The Russians moved them to

I just repeated what an undersecretary from the DoD said. If you will recall, I also said that the WH needed to tell us if that was true.

5. We destroyed them

That appears to be the latest development, doesn’t it?

By the way, are you (like David Kay and Tgirsch) now admitting that Saddam had WMDs?

posted on 10.29.2004 4:45 PM

~DS~ writes:

60

Joe ... It's dizzying to watch you bounce around so desperately. Although I have to admit there is some perverse pleasure in watching war aplogists twitch around spastically like a cat on a metal electrified floor as each excuse gets shoot out beneath their feet, it's not worth it at the expense of having tons of HMX floating around.....For the record, you're now disavowing the Russian excuse, and the Saddam moved them excuse along with the photo the DoD put out implying that, and going with the latest 'our guys destroyed them afterall we just forgot" excuse right? Is this your final excuse or are you going to sing yet another in the next day or so?

posted on 10.29.2004 4:51 PM

Joe Carter writes:

61

DS,

Yeah it's great having him alive and threatening us Joe ...

How exactly is he a "threat"? He has no more funding, no base of operations, he can't contact his subordinates without us finding out about it. Why do you think he doesn't release a new tape every week? Because he is taking a risk by exposing himself. He realizes that he is being upstaged by Zarqawi and is making a desperate attempt to show that he is still relevant.

Notice, for example, how he finally admitted to attacking the towers. That threw a monkey wrench in "the Jews did it" and other assorted conspiracy theories and undercut his cause. He is probably ticked off that Bush has told the world that while he is still a wanted man he is an irrelevant coward. That must have stung enough for him to come out of hiding. But he isn't a much of a threat anymore.

posted on 10.29.2004 4:52 PM

Joe Carter writes:

62

DS,

it's not worth it at the expense of having tons of HMX floating around...

Let me ask again since you ignored the question the first time. Are you now admitting that Saddam had WMDs?

posted on 10.29.2004 4:56 PM

C3 writes:

63

I see you have regressed to name calling. Thanks for your personal story about 9/11. . . I one also, but prefer not to share it with you.

If you want to take a one liner out of the Bush text - that's basically what you're basing your whole argument on...
Of course Bush is concerened with capturing and/or killing OBL... But he also seems more concerned with yours, mine, and our troops safety than anything else. That cannot be said of your man "Kerry".
Kerry is more concerned with politicizing every issue regarding Iraq and the war on terror just to get his traitorous ass into the WH. He has no stance on any of this, except to say that we need to build a real coalition... To do what exactly? To discredit the coalition that already exists. That's his stance on the issue. What does that even mean. Does he have any plan whatsoever with any real issues that plague us today. . . or is he just spewing political rhetoric for his own advancement?

DS, can you just address the questions posed to you earlier...
Here they are again for your consideration:
With the new video tape of Osama Bin Laden being broadcast on your beloved "Al Jazeera", given what he said,
if you were John Kerry-(President Elect) would you:
a) give in to the demands of the terrorist-(Osama) and cut and run?
b) stay in Iraq, defeat the insurgents, and help stabalize the situation?
c) hunt down and capture/kill Osama-(now that we know for sure that he is still alive)?
d) play like France, put your tail between your legs and scurry home - and hope that the terrorists don't come over here again to kill more of us?

These are real questions that need real answers. Are you up for it DS... or are you just going to sit there on your level playing field and cry?
You/Kerry may be able to persuade someone to vote in your direction if you can address these questions honestly without interjecting "Bush bashing" into your answers.

What will you/Kerry do if elected?

posted on 10.29.2004 5:04 PM

C3 writes:

64

sorry - type-o fixes from line one...
"DS, I see you have regressed to name calling. Thanks for your personal story about 9/11. . . I have one also, but prefer not to share it with you."

posted on 10.29.2004 5:07 PM

Mark O writes:

65

Larry,

Nobody here is rejoicing over Iraqi civilian deaths. It seems you don't grok why we might have gone into Iraq. Recall after 9/11 Bush said that we were at war against state sponsored terrorism. Saddam's state was in bed with terrorists. He certainly was making no effort to track them down and stop them. Hell, he paid $25k to each family of a dead bomber in Israel. That is why Iraq mattered. He managed to convice the world he had active WMD programs. He planned to revitalize him once his massive UN bribery operation brought the sanctions (which were failing) down. Get it? If you have any evidence that the US military directly targeted civilians, it's to me (and would be to everyone else).

~DS~
I quibbled with your analogy because it didn't reflect the basic innumeracy of those who think the "missing" HMX/MDX is an issue.

Regarding Bush's comment which you quote about OBL, you are quoting out of context. He was pointing out that OBL by being forced into hiding has been rendered ineffectual. If you pay attention, we are still looking for him. But you will also observe he hasn't exactly been burning up the air-waves drumming up support for his cause. His current status (missing, with tapes that may or may not be new, or anonymously dead somewhere) may actually be preferrable strategically to his public death or trial and execution.

It strikes me that the main difference of opinion on the Iraq war stems from a disagreement of what war we are fighting. Some think it is a war on al-Qaeda only. Some think it is war not just against al-Qaeda but all states who sponsor terror. That is the core of the disagreement as far as I can tell. There are those who think the 2nd war is too ambitious and too costly. We lost more lives in 9/11 than Pearl Harbor. WWII cost us half of our GDP for what, 5 years? So far, this war is still being fought on the cheap.

Kerry is for fighting the first war. Bush is fighting the 2nd.

posted on 10.29.2004 5:07 PM

~DS~ writes:

66

Mark I'd like to believe he's 'ineffectual'. The fact is there have been some pretty terrible attacks since he escaped Rummy's brilliant strategy at Tora Bora and historically, after he makes an appearance, another attack follows. I only hope it won't happen this time.

posted on 10.29.2004 5:10 PM

C3 writes:

67

Joe,
DS ignores all questions that weaken his party-line stance.

Isn't that the level playing field you speak of DS?
Ignoring the questions will not make them go away DS.

posted on 10.29.2004 5:13 PM

writes:

68

One more try DS...
Give it a shot. Answer a few of questions. . .

With the new video tape of Osama Bin Laden being broadcast on "Al Jazeera", given what he said,
if you were John Kerry-(President Elect) would you:
a) give in to the demands of the terrorist-(Osama) and cut and run?
b) stay in Iraq, defeat the insurgents, and help stabalize the situation?
c) hunt down and capture/kill Osama-(now that we know for sure that he is still alive)?
d) play like France, put your tail between your legs and scurry home - and hope that the terrorists don't come over here again to kill more of us?

These are real questions that need real answers. Are you up for it DS... or are you just going to sit there on your level playing field and cry?
You/Kerry may be able to persuade someone to vote in your direction if you can address these questions honestly without interjecting "Bush bashing" into your answers.

What will you/Kerry do if elected?

posted on 10.29.2004 5:16 PM

~DS~ writes:

69

C3 I think I'd put everything including the kicthen sink into Afghanistan near the Pakistan border and hunt those guys down. As far as Iraq, we're so screwed there I have no idea what to do. Let them have elections in Jan and maybe we can withdraw gracefully hoping the nation doesn't shortly implodes afterward is our best bet.

I'm not going to pick on you anymore Joe. I appreciate your good nature and you putting up with this whole nasty mess of the explosives. There's no point in me being a poor sport. The losers in this aren't you or the WH, it's whoever gets attacked with that stuff. I admire your loyalty, I just think it's misplaced and a bit Orwellian. Have a good evening and perhaps we'll know more tomorrow ok?

posted on 10.29.2004 5:23 PM

C3 writes:

70

DS - Thanks for your honest answer to 2 of the questions. That is my main concern with Kerry and his followers - He just doesn't know what to do, given the opportunity. If you have a bit of vision you can see that Iraq will be better off than it has ever been (at least since the "Thief of Bahgdad" days) in the near future - but only if we stay and help them to achieve "a free society". The mess (as you call it) will truly be created if Kerry is elected and he starts waivering and waffling over Iraq. Realistically, leaving Iraq soon after the elections are held there, is the stupidist and most naive thing I've heard from you yet... and will most certainly solidify the terrorists strong holds in that country. This is going to take several years of perserverance. . .
Could you just imagine if after Hitler fell in Germany, we just said..."OK, time to go - wish y'all the best. Good luck."
Yeah... good plan DS!
It seems from reading your posts -DS- that you are a "glass is half empty" kind of guy. Your allegiance to the traitor-(Kerry), the UN and the IAEA are blurring your vision for a better tomorrow.
You are truly misguided - Maybe you should look to your own country for the truth instead of a bunch of foreigners who hate your country and what it stands for - (Freedom and Justice). . .

We -DS - live in the least Orwellian of societies on the planet.
BTW, I don't think Joe really feels threatened by your picking on him. It seems that you might have just flamed out, and, can't really keep up with Joe's fact based analisys' of any given situation.

Hope that half empty glass of whatever, tastes good to you.

posted on 10.29.2004 6:16 PM

Terry writes:

71

DS Wrote:
"Terry I'd draw the line at something like "White House Penetrated by German agents and attacked Peru by mistake based on faulty Intel and spoon fed by the German Agents while letting Hitler run amok" for example."
Uh . . . that makes no sense at all DS. It's gibberish. Is there some kind of coded reference to Jewish neocons in there? Or Al-Quaeda agents in the White house? For a minute I thought you were going to throw in Willy Wonka and the Oompa-Loompa's. Or do you think that's a meaningfull response to my question:"Given the following actions by the US in WW2 when would you have demanded a change in administrations? Or would you have given them a pass?"
I suspect that you think the global context of GWOT & WWII would make a difference, but you dodged the question. Seems to be habit with you.
Why don't you vote for the guy McCain's endorsing? At one time you say you prefered him for Prez over Bush. Don't you trust his judgement?

posted on 10.29.2004 6:29 PM

Larry Lord writes:

72

I'm gonna do a Carter-style fisking, Mark O., "just because" ...

"Recall after 9/11 Bush said that we were at war against state sponsored terrorism."

I recall him saying "Osama Bin Laden, dead or alive."

"Saddam's state was in bed with terrorists. He certainly was making no effort to track them down and stop them."

So 100,000 Iraqi civilians had be killed because Saddam's counter-terrorism intelligence wasn't up to our standards?

The evidence to suggest Saddam ever supported fundamentalist Islamic terrorism was weak, to put it charitably.

"Hell, he paid $25k to each family of a dead bomber in Israel."

So freaking what? Chicken feed compared to the contributions of Americans to support Israeli aggression against Palestinians.

"If you have any evidence that the US military directly targeted civilians, it's news to me (and would be to everyone else)."

It doesn't make any difference to me whether innocent people whose deaths are the direct and INEVITABLE result of our government's actions are "targeted". The cities these people and their children live in are "directly targeted" and bombed and shot at all the time by coalition forces.

posted on 10.29.2004 7:31 PM

~DS~ writes:

73

I wonder if these kids hit in our show piece fire works show called "Shock and Awe" were terrorists? I can't imagine why the Iraqi's don't fall to their knees thanking us!
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://aztlan.net/holdingtolife.jpg&imgrefurl=http://aztlan.net/iraqichildrenhorror.htm&h=276&w=409&sz=20&tbnid=AgXB1rBcspwJ:&tbnh=81&tbnw=120&start=5&prev=/images%3Fq%3Diraqi%2Bcasualties%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG

Maybe that six year old girl whose dead in her uncle's arms, her right foot blown off leaving a bunch of bloody tendons hanging out, was holding an RPG with sarin in it huh?

posted on 10.29.2004 7:54 PM

C3 writes:

74

Oh, Okay DS... Your conservative views shine through clear as day. Don't kid yourself DS... I don't want to have to resort to calling you an idiot or a lame brain now.
You are going to vote for a guy who wants to raise your taxes, he wants the government to control your med. care, his voting record on defense is as liberal as it gets, he stands to the left of Kennedy on almost everything, he's for gun control, I mean against it, I mean for it, Is that a picture of him hunting in fatigues? You're not really sure where he stands on an array of issues-(because he doesn't know where he stands).... It goes on and on and on...
Yup - you are a true conservative DS.
BTW, Kerry's not your typical liberal - He's THE prototypical liberal.
You lame brained idiot... Give me a break!

DS writes:
"But historically, after OBL makes a public statement there is often an attack."

Then should you credit the Bush admin. with thwarting all of the attacks that should have taken place after OBL's 5 previous public statements since 9/11. . .
That would mean that you'd have to give Bush some credit for doing something right...and he's a conservative. Yeah - you probably shouldn't.

It's a fine line you have to walk to be DS. Taking both sides on several issues. Pretending to have conservative views.
Sounds like someone else we know.

posted on 10.29.2004 8:00 PM

~DS~ writes:

75

C3 why the hell are we in Iraq if we're after OBL?

posted on 10.29.2004 8:10 PM

C3 writes:

76

Larry writes/answers:
Hell, he paid $25k to each family of a dead bomber in Israel.
"So freaking what?"

You are a sick bastard Larry... You sympathize with the cause of terrorists to help validate your points. When was the last time an Israeli blew himself up in a crowded discotech or on a bus. . .???

Sorry DS, I take it back...
Larry is the Lame Brained Idiot.

The problem is that Larry doesn't understand who the bad guys really are. Larry, the troops do everything in their power not to involve civilians. It's the terrorists who hide behind those children that deserve your ire... not our troops. But your partisanship just wont allow for that to happen, will it?
You should be a propagandist for Palestinian terrorists Larry. Oh, nevermind, you already are. I'm sure terrorists everywhere are happy to have you on their side.
You are a truly misguided JACK-ASS Larry!

posted on 10.29.2004 8:13 PM

~DS~ writes:

77

TY C3, now why are we in iraq if we're after OBL? Doesn't it make more sense to be in southern Afghanistan with tens of thousands of troops instead of Iraq?

posted on 10.29.2004 8:17 PM

C3 writes:

78

We're after all terrorists DS, not only OBL.
Don't YOU already know that. Have you been on vacation for the last 3 years. Please spare me on the "No terrorists in Iraq" speech. Saddam and his regime were terrorists and he supported terrorism. Larry already validated that one for you! If you want to dispute the way that the GWOT is being fought, then you and 45% or so, of Americans have that right. But don't kid yourself DS - It would be more like 10% of Americans, if it wasn't for partisan politics.

posted on 10.29.2004 8:24 PM

~DS~ writes:

79

Ok C3, but doesn't it make sense to go after the terrorists that actually attacked us and threaten to do so in the future with more vigor than alleged terrorists in Iraq who have not attacked us?

posted on 10.29.2004 8:32 PM

Larry Lord writes:

80

Mark O writes

"You are a sick bastard Larry... You sympathize with the cause of terrorists to help validate your points."

You've got to be kidding. First, I admit that I sympathize with just about anyone who is suffering and dying because they happened to be born in a screwed-up place. I don't condone terrorists blowing up innocent people. But I don't condemn people for reacting violently to the insane world they live in. That certainly seems to be what's going on in Palestine. I've said before that Palestinian suicide bombers would get a lot more sympathy if they went to a tall hill somewhere and blew themselves up. But let's face it: they are at war with Israel and Israel has better toys.

The "point" I was trying to "validate" is merely that because Saddam Hussein allegedly gives $25 to the families of dead Palestinians does not justify the killing and crippling of a hundred thousand innocent Iraqis. It's that simple.

Bear in mind that Saddam Hussein is in jail and the killing of innocent Iraqis at the hands of coalition forces continues. And by all accounts there are more terrorists in Iraq now than there ever were before and it's likely they have their hands on more dangerous weapons than they ever had. And George Bush is responsible for this situation, not Osama Bin Laden. How can you possibly believe otherwise, unless in your heart you don't acknowledge the humanity of Arabs and Muslims (yes, such people do exist and guess what -- they vote Republican).

posted on 10.29.2004 8:59 PM

Terry writes:

81

DS wrote-
"Terry imo getting conend by a known conman who now appears to have been operating for Iranian Intel and being goaded into attacking a country that wasn't a combatant in 9-11 is gounds for replacing the senior leadership who got snookered. So if someone did that in WW2 I'd think the samr thing. I'm in 2004 of course so there's not a hell of a lot I can do about that. But I'm interested in your take or anyone else who cares to chime, what does a leader and his advisors have to do in war time mistake wise to warrant in your minds being replaced?"
But you still haven't answered the question. I'm very open and direct, not dodgy. I'd give the political administrations of the allies in WWII a complete pass. In some of the cases I might be happy if incompetent officers got the sack, but a complete pass on Dresden, Hiroshiam, and Nagasaki among other possible mistakes. Because they won. When you win, you get to shape events rather than be shaped by them. When you win, it's your vision of the future that prevails, not the enemy's.
To let you know where I'm coming from, I work in a scientific field but I spent several years in college doing the liberal arts thing. Lots of history & lit courses. In English I specialized in rhetorical analysis. I'm a registered independant and I have voted for the Libertarian for president twice since 1980. I have never voted for a Democrat for president.
I thought the whole Bosnia/Yugoslavia was not our business, but once we were in I wanted a complete NATO victory. Because when your the world's last superpower you can't appear weak. I did not support McCain for the republican nomination in 2000 because I thought he was temperamentally unsuited for the job. He was, I thought, too apt to be ruled by anger. Also his "American Greatness" theme was too fascistic for me.
Since September 11, 2001 we have destroyed two of the world's most violence prone, anti-American regimes, while suffering less than 2,000 casualties ourselves and inflicting a remarkably small number of civilian casualties on the enemy. And your response is "throw the bums out"?
You ask "what does a leader and his advisors have to do in war time mistake wise to warrant in yo