The U.N. agency responsible for monitroing the Iraqi nuclear program has sent a letter to the Security Council informing it of the theft of 342 tons of high explosives in Iraq. 
Executive Director Mohamed ElBaradei of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency Monday told the council 195 tons of HMX, 141 tons of RDX, and 6 tons of PETN were stolen.
What ElBaradei forgot to mention was that there is no way of knowing how much of the explosive material was "stolen." The reason he couldn't have know is because the HMX began missing on his watch:
Press Encounter with Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of IAEA
January 9, 2003: Q: Dr. ElBaradei, you mentioned the problem of the missing HMX. Could you give us an indication of what that does and what your concern is, what role this plays in the weapons programme?
MElB: Well, the HMX are high explosives. We are now going through the material balance of what we know existed in Iraq with regard to the HMX. They have told us that some of the HMX material has been used in cement mines and we are going now through the accounting of all the HMX material in Iraq before we come to a conclusion. So, it is an ongoing process.
A statement by Spokesman for Ministry of Foreign Affairs on (UNMOVIC),(IAEA) activities
3 November 1993: Two hundred fifty-five tons of high explosive of the HMX type are stored under IAEA seal in six bunkers at the Al Qa Qaa site. As a typical dual-use material, HMX is listed in annex 3 to the plan. The present storage conditions of HMX at Al QA Qaa are inconvenient for monitoring and cause some safety concerns. IAEA has requested that the Iraqi side consolidate the HMX in a safer and more convenient place to facilitate sealing and regular monitoring. The IAEA-20 team evaluated two large bunkers in the Muthanna complex which Iraq had proposed as an alternative storage location. With minor modifications to improve security, these bunkers represent a considerable improvement over the current storage conditions at Al QA Qaa. The transfer of the HMX is expected to take place during IAEA-22.
United Nations Security Council Briefing by Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of IAEA
January 9, 2003: The relocation and consumption of some dual use materials has been among the questions raised in connection with Iraq's backlog of semi-annual declarations. The high explosive "HMX" is a prime example of such material. The removal of Agency seals on the HMX and the declared relocation and consumption of some of the HMX must be explained and documented by Iraq before the Agency can reach a conclusion with regard to the use of such material. The Iraqi declarations indicate that out, of the 228 tonnes of HMX available in Iraq at the end of 1998, 196 remained at the facility where the HMX was previously under IAEA seal. Iraq also declared that it had blended the remaining 32 tonnes with sulphur and turned them into 45.6 tonnes of "industrial explosive" provided mainly to cement plants for mining. The material balance, current stock, whereabouts and final use of such material are currently being investigated.
IAEA Update Report for the Security Council Pursuant to Resolution 1441 (2002)
January 27, 2003 53. The relocation and consumption of HMX (a high explosive of potential use in nuclear weapons), as described in Iraq's backlog of semi-annual declarations, has been investigated by the IAEA. In those declarations, Iraq stated that, between 1998 and 2002, it had transferred 32 of the 228 tonnes of HMX which had been under IAEA seal as of December 1998 to other locations. In addition, Iraq stated that a very small quantity (46 kg) of HMX had been used at munitions factories for research and development. At the request of the IAEA, Iraq has provided further clarification on the movement and use of the HMX. In that clarification, Iraq indicated that the 32 tonnes of HMX had been blended with sulphur to produce industrial explosives and provided mainly to cement plants for quarrying, and that the research and development using the small quantity of HMX had been in the areas of personnel mines, explosives in civilian use, missile warhead filling and research on tanks.
54. IAEA inspectors have been able to verify and re-seal the remaining balance of approximately 196 tonnes of HMX, most of which has remained at the original storage location. The movement of the blended HMX and the other small quantity of HMX has also been documented by Iraq. However, it has not been possible to verify the use of those materials, as all of it is said to have been consumed through explosions and there are no immediately available technical means for verifying such uses. The IAEA will continue to investigate means of verifying the Iraqi statements about the use of the HMX and blended HMX.
ElBaradei and the UN know that it will eventually come to light that they had no control over the "stolen" material. But by then the damage to President Bush will have already been done. Is this the UN's attempt to blow up Bush's reelection?
Update: Mark Sides notes an important clarification. The stash of explosives mentioned in these documents is not included in the total tonnage that is suspected to be missing now. The claim of 300+ tons seems to be rather suspect since it is more than was documented to be at the site, but it could be a simple clerical error. The documents show that the inspectors rarely spent more than an hour or two doing their inspections so its not surprising that this sort of thing happened. The UN is guilty of either being sloppy or corrupt. The ISG investigation should tell us which.
Update 2: Josh Claybourn also finds the timing rather suspect:
That's right, the IAEA (an arm of the UN) has leaked what appears to be a false story damaging to the Bush administration, which liberal media outlets like blogs, the NY Times, and John Kerry have bought hook line and sinker without proper research. Seeing a political opportunity, Kerry didn't hesitate to blame the president and military: "George W. Bush, who talks tough ... and brags about making America safer, has once again failed to deliver. After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq, this president failed to guard those stockpiles." Left of center blogs that I read and respect, from Brian Balta to Prof. Cooper, have jumped on the story as well: "Those materials, in all likelihood, have since been used (and are still being used) by the insurgents to kill our soldiers as well as thousands of Iraqi civilians." Yet HMX and RDX have not been used against coalition forces in Iraq. More importantly, it's becoming increasingly likely that the weapons were missing before Americans ever arrived.
Great point. Why haven't we seen these explosives being used against our troops?
Of course it's a conspiricy Joe. Nothing is ever George Bush's fault!
~DS~,
It's not entirely clear how it is Bush's fault. He can't be responsible for the disposition of explosives prior to the invasion. During the invasion is just as problematic.
And as more facts get out, your hindsight is getting sharper and sharper.
Well see Mark. I'd say there was defintely some shoddy security work done right and left in the post invasion and it only makes sense it stems directly from not having enough troops. Not to mention more help.
I think you've been Overtaken By Events.
Apparently, it's been broken already that, yep, the explosives WERE there when the US invaded.
See my blog for further details.
But thanks for playing, and I hope you appreciate a good 8 years of an ETHICAL Kerry administration.
But thanks for playing, and I hope you appreciate a good 8 years of an ETHICAL Kerry administration.
Please lets hope that doesn't happen. I'm hoping for four years of government stagnation under Kerry followed by some good years under the leadership of moderate Republicans like McCain or Powell.
You realize if Bush hadn't sunk to push polling on McCain we'd have him in there now instead of Bush? Sheehs tlak about irony.
On a related note to the thread header, a number of reporters are said to be working on stories to break by this weekened documenting that he explosives were still under seal in the first sweep through the depot. And they disappeared slowly over the next few months. We'll see... But if they can document that one, I'd say Bush is cooked on this issue.
Since we're talking about the honesty & efficiency of UNSCOM, what ever happened to the 15,000 Iraqui ground-to-ground missiles that UNSCOM admitted in 1998 it could never account for. Also the same year UNSCOM said 500+ Iraqui mustard-gas filled artillery shells were unaccounted for. And then there is the documentation UNSCOM discovered that showed 6,000 CBW bombs were missing from Iraqi Air Force stockpiles, also never accounted for. The Iraqi Air Force, in their honest, let's work together attitude towards the inspection process, had falsified documentation to show that they were used in the Iran/Iraq war.
Should we except all of UNSCOM's findings or just the ones that help bash Bush?
Terry pointing that there may be even more terrible weapons missing which were not secured is not exactly helping Bush now is it?
Mumon quotes an anonymous source. But we have an attributed source, Bryan Whitman, who said:
"Coalition forces were present in the vicinity at various times during and after major combat operations. The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility, but found no indicators of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). While some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals."
The whole memogate issue has taught us to NEVER trust an anonymous source.
Please note that our good friend at the AP, a.k.a. the Kerry Transcript Service, no longer have the last sentence in their quotes of Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. How conveeenient.
The complete quote from Whitman can be found here but not here. AFP provides the same quote but attributes it to Larry deRita.
~DS~
What crystal ball are you looking into that informs you that more troops and allies would have been better? It doesn't scan. More troops mean more cost, more logistical headaches, slower movement of forces, and more casualties on both sides. More allies mean more communications glitches, more (enthusiastic) poorly trained soldiers in the field, and more ego's to be assuaged. How is that "better". Unless you are as anti-American as the loons stalking the academic halls.
Furthermore, with the troops we did use, the taking of Iraq was completed their mission in a fraction of the time anyone expected, and with less loss of life on both sides than anyone anticipated.
Of the 240,000+ tons of munitions unsecured in Iraq pre-war you seem to think the missing tons reported (much less than a percent) is News? Rubbish.
Mark it's the consensus of many. Shinseki, Hackworth, Clarke, even Bremer. Rummy had this 'vision' for a super light stirke force he's been talking about for years. That's where the light attack numbers came from. Rummy should have resigned, he should have taken one for the team.
On the 240,000 tons, just a few days ago several of you implied-or directly stated I forget which-that even one obsolete sarin shell was a serious threat and that the entire world was safer with that in custody. Then on the thread before this one Joe referred to the 380 tons of HE as a "WMD'. And now you're trying to claim that it not securing them is fine, because those 760,000 pounds are insignificant. I think you guys need to get your stories straight.
DS-
The UNSCOM report came out in January '99. It makes interesting reading, you can see it at www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125
Bush wasn't president then. If you know where the weapons were when Iraqi freedom started, please enlighten us. Or tell us how UNSCOM got it wrong. Before you accuse Bush of not securing stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, admit that Saddam had them.
The point of my post was that UNSCOM believed that saddam had WMD's. If you trust the UN to tell you the truth about a missing stock of conventional weapons today, you've got to give their '99 report about WMD the same authority. You can't call a witness an honest man when he agrees with you, and then turn around and call him a lying crook when he disagrees with you.
Let's get something straight. The WMD the UNSCOM report talked about were produced before the First Gulf War. They were not declared to the inspectors and they were produced when Saddam had known, active CBW programs and was using CBW's against the Iranian's and the Kurds.
It may be that the known WMD munitions UNSCOM couldn't account for were used or destroyed without documention. It may be that they were moved to Syria or another country. They might still be in Iraq hidden in a bunker somewhere. There are unconfirmed reports from Iraqi's that the CBW munitions were mixed in with conventional munitions so that the officers in charge of shooting at us wouldn't have a chance to get cold feet about using them.
We don't know what happened to them now, a year and a half after occupying the country. Even if they were gone in early 2003, either used, destroyed, or moved out of country, how was Bush supposed to know that? Take Saddam's word for it?
Why hadn't the UN already removed the explosives from Iraq? So were they gonna give 'em back to Sodom when the inspections ended? Boy, there may not have been WMD stockpiles, but there were at least 400,000 tons of weapons the US has already collected or destroyed. So Saddam could've passed those weapons to terrorists, right? :-)
Mark said: "More allies mean more communications glitches, more (enthusiastic) poorly trained soldiers in the field, and more ego's to be assuaged. How is that "better". Unless you are as anti-American as the loons stalking the academic halls."
You gotta let me answer this! No! You gotta let me answer this! But you forgot about Poland! Ask Tony Blair if we went alone!
Great point, I guess, except it contradicts the Bush administrations contention that we did have a full and vibrant coalition of the "willing".
DS,
Are you guys listening to how ridiculous you're sounding as you scramble to make excuses for the WH?
What world do you live in? Where do you get the idea that the WH is able to control the entire war from Washington? Ultimately, the Bush administration would be responsible. But on down the chain of command we have several dozen layers of responsibility. Since they seem to be sticking to the story that the munitions weren’t there when they took over the base, I think this story may not have the legs you think it does. I tend to believe my own military over a UN hack who failed to mention the weapons that were lost while he was on watch.
Joe I don't expect things to go perfect in a war. But come on buddy, this is the tip of the ice berg, there were many areas they did not secure...because they didn't have enough troops to do it. And senior military personnel are on public record advising them that all this would happen. Now a lot of this stuff is out there floating around, along with who knows how many lab techs and WMD scientists, all pissed off at the US and all out of a job.. It doesn't sound like we're safer. In fact it's such a cluster f-k I'm almost tempted to vote for Bush and watch him as he come apart at the seams trying to keep a lid on it. Whoever wins the WH has a prettty nasty mess awaitin.
On the WSJ story about Zarqari, you'd better believe that one is going to get dumped straight into the lap of the WH.
DS,
Joe I don't expect things to go perfect in a war. But come on buddy, this is the tip of the ice berg, there were many areas they did not secure...because they didn't have enough troops to do it.
You must get dizzy from all that spinning. We shouldn’t have gone to war because Iraq wasn’t a threat. But now they have all these munitions that pose a threat to us (because Saddam would never have used them on us or sold them to his al Queda buddies). We are undermanned and stretching the troops thin, almost forcing a draft. Yet we should have sent more troops and we wouldn’t have these problems. Is there any position that you won't take if you think it will help your cause?
The commanders on the ground didn’t want more troops (we weren’t and aren’t an “occupying” army). I trust them more than I do your armchair quarterbacking.
And senior military personnel are on public record advising them that all this would happen.
You mean people like Wesley Clark? ; )
Now a lot of this stuff is out there floating around, along with who knows how many lab techs and WMD scientists, all pissed off at the US and all out of a job.. It doesn't sound like we're safer.
You must not realize how ridiculous this makes you sound. We were better off when these lab techs worked for a tyrant who had both the will and (thanks to the UN) the resources to make nukes and other WMDS. But now we are worse off because these guys will be…I don’t know, cooking crystal meth out in the Mojave? Seriously, where are these Mad Scientists going to get their funding and lab equipment?
In fact it's such a cluster f-k I'm almost tempted to vote for Bush and watch him as he come apart at the seams trying to keep a lid on it.
I bet you are one of the same people who claims to “Support the Troops”, aren’t you? I hate to break it to you but it is the “troops” not Bush who are fighting the war. If you think they are doing a poor job just have the guts to blame them.
On the WSJ story about Zarqari, you'd better believe that one is going to get dumped straight into the lap of the WH.
How is that possible? Zarqawi was with al Queda and there were no al Queda operatives in Iraq before the war. They didn’t find there way to that country until after we invaded.
DS-
By all means vote for W.
On NBC News today:
Joe good Lord...if you're trying to say he was declared as Al Qaeda in 2002 then why the hell did we scrap three plans to take him out? Are you listening to yourself here?
Joe:
Zarqawi was not with al-Qaeda. If he was already with al-Qaeda, there would have been no need for him to declare allegiance to them just last week.It would be like you releasing a statement tomorrow declaring your allegiance to the US Marine Corps.
Rich:
I fail to see how the NBC News story helps you. Had we not chased the UN out, the weapons would likely still have been there.
~DS~: A couple quick questions about your observations.
1. Remember Turkey?
2. Is securing back country a job for a Blitzkrieg force?
3. (From the full Whitman quote in the link Rich provided) Betweem the time IAEA left in March and the end of the same month, the seals disappeared. Is it Bush's fault that he wasted time with the UN seeking legitimacy?
4. If the answer to number 3 is yes (and it should be) then who would do a better job (Among the 2 likely candidates) in throwing off the shackles of international legitmacy the next time?
All questions are quite serious and honest; except number 4 which is rather rhetorical IMHO.
~DS~: Apologies for the small correction. As to #3 we arrived on April 10th and the HMX and RDX was already gone.
John there are reports from other sources that the seals were still in place. I think no one knows yet, or at least if they do they're not talking. And this site is one of hundreds which were assigned a priority level 2 ... the ministry of oil was assigned a priority level of 1. We didn't have enough troops folks, and now we're paying for it. Had we found WMD's or links to AQ/9-11 or if we'd had enough manpower to keep a lid on some of the looting that occurred, Iraq wouldn't be nearly the blight on the Campaign that it is right now.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030405-chem-readiness01.htm
"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."
So we knew about this place, thought it might be a WMD facility, had complete air superiority, had retasked sats to watch it and the air space above it was crawling with drones....but no one knows what happened...I think it's a safe bet that the DoD is caught flat footed and doesn't know what story to make up, because they don't know, or they do know and they ain't talking.
"...an ETHICAL Kerry administration"
Now that's the funniest thing I've read all morning!
~DS~: Once more since you missed the first two questions.
1. Remember Turkey?
2. Should a Blitzkrieg force be securing back country?
Other than those you're about spot on - save the point where you say "I think no one knows yet" then proceed to tell us what is known immediately thereafter. Think about the 2 questions - hard - and then see why your whinging is tragic. For bonus points read about the analysis of the substance and think about why it is even more tragic.
Is this the October surprise Republicans have been worried about? That our troops didn't move fast enough? Or slow enough? Or guarded this, instead of that?
Here is the linchpin of the Democratic argument: the US military is incompetent. How else to explain how high explosives and munitions that could be used against US forces later were allowed to slip away? The UN says so!!
I'll eagerly await the campaign ads by the Dems, denigrating the most successful war effort in history. The Army's stupid!! Vote for John Kerry, War Hero!! What a friggin' joke.
So the idea here is that we couldn't reasonably hold this administration accountable for this blundee...because they're all the way in Washington...because the invasion was so rapid? This is not even a response. If the administration can't control a war, then they shouldn't be waging war. If the invasion plan is such that it can't secure the country, then it's time to come up with a better strategy. Further, the willingness you guys demonstrate to move responsibility for everything that has gone on in Iraq further on down the line really illustrates the contempt that you all have for the military...despite what you say to the contrary. The abuses at Abu Gharaib--ignore the tourture memos drafted by White House Chief council...ignore the testimony of high ranking military intentlligence officers...ignore the importation of Gitmo interrogation tactics! It was just a few rougue soldiers. Ignore the looting of the national treasures of one of the greatest civilizations the world has seen. Ignore the fact that the administration didn't bother to think about securing the country! Ignore. Ignore. Ignore.
~DS~:
There's something important that you missed in the Global Security article. It was from April 5th of 2003, when US troops were at al-Qa-Qaa, and it makes no mention of missing munitions. Wouldn't that lead one to believe that at that time, the munitions were still there?
Tgirsch,
Wouldn't that lead one to believe that at that time, the munitions were still there?
No. For one thing there are over 1100 buildings at that site and as the report made clear, they only did "spot visits." Also, the passage that DS quoted fails to point out that no one checked the munitions on the March 8th visit. There is no evidence that they were still there even when the UN was doing the inspections.
The funny thing is folks...I'm getting some fairly accusatory responses on liberal forums for daring to suggest that not is Bush not Hitler re-incarnated, and for havng the unmiitigated gall to suggest he might really care or that he's actually capable of human compassion. Please keep this in mind; our advertising skills are slicker than snot and if you watch too much of it you might get sucked in to really believing that one of these guys or the other will bring about the Fall of the USA.
Yes, Bush really is capable of caring about his fellow citizens, No, he's not a sociopath. The same for Kerry. Furthermore this election will be over soon (Thank God, I can't wait to for a nice argument with Joe over evolution) and one or the other is going to win. The election is tight, which means your favorite candidate could lose. So everyone better get used to that idea and think about how we will come together as a nation and face the future united.
DS,
The funny thing is folks...I'm getting some fairly accusatory responses on liberal forums...
I checked out some of the comments on your evolution forum and thought they were quite amusing. We may have a lot of people who disagree around here but I think for the most part we don't veer off into looney territory.
...you might get sucked in to really believing that one of these guys or the other will bring about the Fall of the USA.
I personally don't think the Republic is going to crumble if *shudder* Kerry gets elected. Mostly I think we will have Carter II -- malaise and terrorism -- until 2008 when the Democrats will finally find a decent candidate and the Republicans, for the first time in 16 years, won't have someone named "Bush" on the ticket.
I've seen plenty of open hatred on both sides. Among some on the left-certainly not all by any means-some of the despise Bush. Same on the right about Kerry. To some extant I believe this is the result of skillful marketing. Nevertheless the idea that either candidate is some kind of Destructor of Humanity is not only inaccurate, it hurts us as a country becuase it makes reconciliation so much harder.
Among some on the left there is this irrational ap riori assumption that every single thing Bush HAS to be EVIL. No one on this board should be unaware by this time that I'm voting for Kerry, but to think that some folks literally believe that Bush is Hitler redux is disturbing. I think they guy's made some mistakes, but not everything he's done has been wrong. Afghanistan for exmaple was initially pretty damn well executed. We went in there with a small footprint and knocked the Taliban out and chased AQ out of the mainstream.
Early on after 9-11 Bush made a point of stating that Islam per se is not about killing innocent people, and even suggested that Americans volutneer to accompany Muslims to the grocery store of need be should the Muslim-Americans feel frightened. That exhibits some character and depth imo, not to mention it dispeels the myth that Bush is some kind of religious Christian fanatic.
Joe:
IIRC correctly, they didn't check the munitions themselves because the IAEA seals were still intact. Meaning the boxes were still there, with seals still intact. Now the boxes, seals, and everything are gone.Which Bush was on the 1996 ticket?~DS~:
We still see the same thing on the right re: Clinton. He's still as hated as ever by the right (even though he hijacked and enacted several of their pet issues.For the record, I don't harbor an irrational hatred of Bush. My hatred of Bush is wholly rational. :)
I agree Tom. This irrational hatred is not playing favorites with either party. Folks like many of us on this Blog, regardless of which side we're taking on any given issue, are wired in pretty tight to those issues and their respective developments. I think we're super saturated with what is essentially designed to push emotional buttons in folks that aren't quite as interested as many of us. Thus those ads and articles tend to be fairly extreme in some cases to reach the 'regualr' guy who may only read one or two such articles a week.
I'm thinking of just voting early and taking a break from the whole thing.
Tgirsch,
We still see the same thing on the right re: Clinton.
You're half right, you just have the wrong Clinton. Bill was dispised but Hillary was the true villian.
Also, I think the hatred for Bush stems from the Left's focus on the executive branch. Read most lefty blogs and you would be surprised to discover that we have three branches of government. Because they put so much emphasis on that office, they tend to direct all their disdain toward the President.
The Right, on the other hand, dislikes all branches of government so they have to spread their focus to the Congress and SCOTUS as well. That diffusion prevents them from concentrating so much on the person sitting in the White House.
Again I'm voting against Bush for a number of reasons which many have eloquently discussed on this thread.
But to play devil's advocate, it seems to me that the criticism[s] of Bush have become pretty standard fare no matter what the guy does. For example I and many others have been arguing-and rightfully so I feel-that our troops in Iraq are under strength and could stand to be better equipped if they have to be over there. Today it comes out that Bush will be asking for an additional 70 billion and more troops. The reaction to this on the anti-Bush side has been nothing but criticism despite being exactly what many of us have been arguing Bush needs to do.
Today Bush is on record saying that he would compromise on Gay Marriage and advocate civil unions-which is pretty much the same position Kerry holds. Have the critics lauded this willingness to compromise on this heated issue? Not that I've seen so far, in fact it's being used against him by the very critics of the prior policy of intolerance as an example of Bush 'flip-flopping'.
I understand the frustration with the WH, hell I freaking share it. But it seems to me that there has been a tendency to scrutinize and criticize everything the WH does or says automatically regardless of the merit of it including when it's exactly what we've been saying the WH needs to do. Instead what ends up happening is each new development gets carefully exmainded for some way to use it against the WH politically rather than to recognize progress towards the policy that I and others have argued the WH should adopt in the first place. And that's not thinking critically nor is it behaving with consistency. To this moderate it looks quite a bit like the knee jerk reaction many of us despise on the extreme right under the reverse scenario.
Joe:
I think you'll find plenty of disdain for the current SCOTUS on the left, as well. The reason the left is focusing so much on the executive branch this term is because never in recent memory has an administration worked so hard to elminate, bypass, or otherwise circumvent the checks and balances that were so carefully built into our system. The Bush Administration's motto may as well be "Judicial Review is for Pussies!(tm)"
As for the legislative branch, there's really not all that much to say, since it's controlled by the same party as the executive branch and has mostly given the president whatever he wants (and that's a fault against many Democrats as well as the Republicans who control it). But if you go over to our blog, you will see the legislative branch criticized fairly frequently. For example, when they voted to legitimize the practice of sending suspects overseas to be tortured when we can't torture them here, or when yet another DeLay ethics violation comes to light.
Regarding Hillary, I've never understood what the big deal is with her. I don't think she enjoys quite as much popular support on the left as the right seems to think she does; but at the same time, I'm not aware of anything she's done (besides maybe having a bit of a grating personality) that's so horrible. I think it's one of those things where people hate her because they just always have hated her. Rather like the commonplace hatred of the French: most people who claim to hate them, when pressed, can't come up with a good, rational reason why they hate them.
And you still haven't answered which Bush was on the 1996 ticket. ;)
You have the opportunity to make this missing explosives blow up right in Mr. Kerry's face! DO NOT MISS THIS OPPORTUNITY!!
1) Mr. Kerry is attacking the 101st Airborne (they reached Al Qaqaa first) not Mr. Bush. Attacking the troops again!!!!!!!!
2)The DNC is already releasing ads, THEREFORE, they are coordinating an attack with the MSM and El Baradei of the IAEA!
3) CBS and 60 minutes are planning an election eve expose; therefore, they are working with the DNC and they must have had advanced knowledge of the missing HMX and RDX. So CBS knew of the danger and did nothing to inform Americans or the soldiers in the field (those most at risk)
4) This is a smear job by Mohammed El Baradei and the IAEA. So now we see how the UN sees the promise of a Kerry Whitehouse because they already believe that they can reach in and try to influence the very fabric of American life. Maybe you should ask El Baradei or Kofi who they would like to see appointed to the Supreme Court!!!
5) El Baradei has shown his incompetence for years and he should be denied another term in his job BUT only Mr. Bush will make this happen. Mr. Kerry will have him over for a global test cocktail party.
6) If the IAEA had all of this amazing knowledge why did they hold it in secret reserve until this point in time? I suppose El Baraei was happy to see young Americans blown up by RDX road side devices to preserve attack strategy on Mr. Bush.
7) Are Americans happy to see the UN work with ABC, CBS and the DNC to change the course of American history?
8) 400,000 tons destroyed or cached, 380 tons lost while the UN stalled the invasion. We should be kissing the boots of the 101st and all of the other brave soldiers. INSTEAD AMERICANS ARE GOING TO LET THE DNC RUN ADS THAT LABEL THE FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN INCOMPETENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oct 26 - time to fight!!!!! You cannot let Kerry gain a position where he can do to the heros of OIF what he did to the heros of Vietnam. The Kerry hydra has revealed its ugly heads, please, please, please BLOGGERS CUT THEM OFF!!!!!!!!!!
Ya think Roy here might have a preference for who wins this deal? ;)
~DS~:
I dunno, but he clearly has cornered the market on exclamation points, and knows precisely where his CAPS LOCK key is. :)