Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

BWhite · 2004-10-28 21:22:45

Cindy posted a comment that maybe "they" shouldn't buy our good. God forbid that happens because then our economy will be 100% screwed.
*Erm...Bill, sorry, I feel this (unintentionally of course) misrepresents what I said.
Robert Dyck commented on assimilation, other nations and the U.S. I responded that if another nation doesn't like U.S. culture and if they feel we're trying to assimilate them, it's *their* duty to keep out of their society what about ours they don't like (whether blue jeans or soda pop or whatever).
Not that I -want- them to do this, of course. I'm simply trying to point out that if they don't like our pop culture and etc., keep it out of their nations or quit complaining.

Be careful what you wish for. . .

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-new … 0888/posts

As for "freeper" its from Free Republic

= = =

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/ne … tm]Florida polling

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-10-28 22:47:43

The U.N. nuclear agency warned that insurgents in Iraq may have obtained nearly 400 tons of missing explosives that can be used in the kind of bomb attacks that have targeted U.S.-led coalition forces for months. Clark just remarked on Giuliani statement 'For President Bush'
when Bush went to send Rudolph Giuliani out on television to say that the 'actual responsibility' for the failure to secure explosives lies with the troops is insulting and cowardly. There's more on Mr-Apartheid Cheney, a 6 billion dollar contract and cash stolen. The FBI has begun investigating whether the Pentagon improperly awarded no-bid contracts to Halliburton Co is it any wonder Iraq is killing the US economy. It elevates to a criminal matter the election-year question of whether the administration showed favoritism to VP Dick's former company, he has had a strange record in the past some say he's still unhappy happy Mandela got out alive ? On the missing explosives in Iraq, the IAEA was told about the loss over two weeks ago, Dr ElBaradei said, but he had hoped to give US forces and Iraqi officials time to try to recover the missing explosives before the matter became public knowledge. However there are other issues in the election such as how well the Florida process will run, before one vote was cast in early voting this week in Florida, the new touch-screen computer voting machines of Florida started out with a several-thousand vote lead for George W. Bush. via Florida Computers Snatch Thousands of Votes From Kerry
Less on stolen votes and more on the stolen explosives . The IAEA has just said ' It is certainly of concern to us that this material that could have such a potential danger and be so devastating could have gone missing '

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-29 05:59:52

What I don't understand is WHY you believe George Bush helps you achieve the goals you describe?
The man is a phony who talks the game you like but fails to walk the walk.

For me it breaks down like this: Bush is too soft when it comes to actually rolling over the insurgency in cities and his Administration generally spends too much, a large chunk of it totally unrelated to the war. Not great, but perhaps with some pressure from his base he can be made to correct these shortcomings at least partially. Or perhaps not.

Kerry has in the past spoken of withdrawing from Iraq, bring the troops home in 6 months, that sort of thing. If that happens, it's a loss. We're worse off than we started. Lately he's been a big "stay the course" guy, however he's insulted the allies that are with us ("window dressing", "coalition of the bribed") and those who opposed the effort have made it very clear that even with a Kerry Administration they aren't going to help. He speaks of a "plan" for a "smarter war on terror" but is unable to produce any specifics of what the plan entails, leading most reasonable people to conclude he has at best a few vague ideas, likely the very mish-mash he's voiced throughout the campaign. Realistic best case scenario, he does what Bush is doing. Nothing changes, default point for Bush, being the incumbent.

Domestically, he has given every indication of continued bloated domestic spending (just the debates alone runs up quite a tally) with the major difference that he's made it quite clear he intends to raise taxes. This tax increase he outlines will fall squarely on small business owners, negatively affecting employment and dragging down the economy. Minus one point for Kerry.

By his voting record he's the most anti-gun Presidential nominee in recent memory, quite possibly ever. Minus one point for Kerry.

Supreme Court vacancies. We can expect Kerry to nominate Leftist judges of the sort that make up law on the fly. Minus one point for Kerry. Bush will nominate judges who actually try to intepret the law. No points awarded as this is what's expected of an American President.

By my criteria, Bush isn't too inspiring but Kerry is significantly worse. However, I'm sure your criteria are somewhat different so it's reasonable you'd come to a different conclusion.

This shows me most Bush supporters have their heads in the sand, ignoring the truth.

It shows me that a significant percentage of the American people are uninformed. I know plenty of rabid anti-Bush Democrats who believe that Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen. There's plenty of stupid to go around.

There are an uncomfortable number of people in the Reform party who want to join America's hell-bent-for-leather conquest of the world, as well as adopting policies from the extreme right-wing of the U.S. Most Canadians are shocked; they want to be peaceful, moderate, and respect foreign governments.

Hmm. Maybe admitting some Provinces into the Union isn't so out-there after all.

But you raise some valid points Robert, the US has been a bit of a prick in some of the trade relations with Canada and there's a definate "junior partner" vibe coming off Canada with regards to NAFTA. Were it my decision we'd do things a bit differently but from an economic standpoint Canada is going to have to put up with more crap from the US than vice-versa, but it isn't one-sided either. Here in Michigan there's currently a big flap over our taking Canadian trash in our landfills, for example. Free trade has this stuff with it. Otherwise we can all try for autarchy. ???

So America wants others to be held accountable, but wants to be immune themselves? Do I really have to say why this is offensive?

Not at all, I see the rub. We shouldn't be supporting the international court in any case if we want to be consistent, but if we turn Americans over to it we'll have everyone with a grudge coming out to pass symbolic judgments every time an American is brought before the assembly. It'll be a sick joke, a perverse kangaroo court motivated by politics rather than justice. No American in their right mind would want to submit to the proposal.

The U.N. nuclear agency warned that insurgents in Iraq may have obtained nearly 400 tons of missing explosives that can be used in the kind of bomb attacks that have targeted U.S.-led coalition forces for months.

The story being circulated on this has two glaring flaws, first that these explosives were very possibly removed before American troops arrived, not carted off in trucks under their noses. Second, these aren't munitions. This isn't car-bomb stuff, raw high explosive isn't something you can readily use in the field. It's what you use to make plastic explosives and artillery shell warheads, you need a detonator, you can't just jam a fuse in and blow up a truck.

Clark just remarked on Giuliani statement 'For President Bush'
when Bush went to send Rudolph Giuliani out on television to say that the 'actual responsibility' for the failure to secure explosives lies with the troops is insulting and cowardly.

That's exactly what Kerry has been saying about it. The reality is that our troops were probably never guarding this stuff because they likely never occupied the same space together, but the official Democrat Party line on this seems to be that our troops are incompetent and let looters take dozens of truckloads of stuff out of ammo-dumps that they never checked because apparently American soldiers have no idea what sort of things are stored in ammo dumps and that fool George Bush didn't tell them. I thought it was the most mindless nonesense I'd ever heard until people started believing it.

How many times does the New York Times and CBS have to screw the pooch before the average lib questions their credibility?

The FBI has begun investigating whether the Pentagon improperly awarded no-bid contracts to Halliburton Co is it any wonder Iraq is killing the US economy.

The Pentagon, as well as other agencies regularly award no-bid contracts to Halliburton and others. There's very little competition in certain fields, no one else does what Halliburton does on the scale they can do it. Look at all the no-bid contracts awarded under the Clinton Administration, I suppose Bill was in collusion with Cheney too?
By all means let's have an investigation when there are signs of corruption, but assuming it's there whenever the name "Halliburton" pops up isn't an investigation, it's a political witch hunt.

before one vote was cast in early voting this week in Florida, the new touch-screen computer voting machines of Florida started out with a several-thousand vote lead for George W. Bush.

I seem to recall it was Democrats that wanted the new voting machines. Something simple and untraceble to replace those oh-so-complicated punchcards. But of course any problem is the fault of the Bush campaign.

Oh well, I'm off to plant a million votes and maybe steal a few hundred tons of raw explosive from a National Guard armory, I hear you just drive in and out.

Oh, that's right. My sources have all flipped out.

How much horse tranquilizer does it take to calm down a rabid donkey?

Shaun Barrett · 2004-10-29 06:20:36

I'm really trying hard to avoid this depressing slugfest between diehard Democrats and red-neck Republicans(! ) but then again it's almost over now anyway, so ...

This 350 tonnes of high explosive material was almost certainly there after the Coalition troops arrived, so at least some of the blame for its disappearance must be laid at the doorstep of the military. I believe it's unconscionable that such material could be left unguarded and end up commandeered by the enemy; somebody needs to be censured for that.
But, having said that, I know enough of what went on during WWII to say that this sort of thing does happen in time of war. The most incredible foul-ups have been perpetrated by German, French, Italian and British forces - not just by Americans - and it doesn't just apply to comparative incidentals like ammunition dumps either. Even the main strategic initiatives of whole army groups are prey to the vagaries of fate as battles unfold. In fact, Field Marshal Helmuth Von Moltke, German Chief of Staff 1906-1914, wrote: "No operation plan extends with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the main body of the enemy."
The difference then was that people like CNN and other news agencies weren't trailing around with cameras to anything like the same extent. And undermining the credibility of the command structure with revelations similar to this, while the lives of our troops were still on the line in an ongoing conflict, was regarded as treachery. Plenty of time for recriminations after the job was done.
But things have changed, I guess.

However, in addition to the above, I'd like to make the point that Iran and Syria have access to rather more than 350 tonnes of high explosives and have been supplying Islamic murderers with all they need to kill innocent people for many years. While losing that much explosive material was an appalling lapse, it's nothing new in the annals of war, and it's of limited importance in Iraq when you view the big picture. If the terrorists have access to unlimited money, arms, and explosives, 350 tonnes extra isn't going to make two cents worth of difference.

I'm afraid this is just another tawdry example of politicking as the U.S. election approaches. But judging by a similar campaign against John Howard, Australia's incumbent at our election a few weeks ago, the desperation of this line of attack probably bodes well for President Bush. It looks like Kerry and all the anti-Bush contingents worldwide might really be scraping the barrel with this one.

Thank God it's nearly all over!

BWhite · 2004-10-29 07:14:28

Cobra, you know I love you. Actually we think more alike that many may believe, and perhaps our differences arise as much from the perceptions of fact as from values and how we analyze those facts.

Perhaps our differences can be explained thusly:

It appears to me you believe America is holding a full house or 4 Kings while the rest of the world is largely bust. If true, to play poker aggressively is appropriate.

I however fear our hand is far weaker and the others have hands that are far stronger than you do. In that case, to bid and play aggressively is folly.

= = =

Apply this to the missing explosives.

The problem as I see it is that GWB =VERY= greatly underestimated the challenge of securing Iraq after we whacked Saddam. He was guided by the false confidence that it would be "a cakewalk" and that 95% of the Iraqis would actively and vigorously support us.

Thus we went in way too light and made foolish ideologically based decisions about firing millions of soldiers and civil servants.

Bush has shown NO willingness to admit any error and he still seems to believe America holds a royal flush while the rest of the world holds nothing and the only impediment to our triumph is our own will.

I am a rabid chauvanist in FAVOR of the superiority of Western culture and values. However I fear we are far more outnumbered than the Right seems to think and our cards are far weaker than you seem to think. Raising the table in that case is foolish.

Thus, the Bush strategery is damn dangerous and foolish.

= = =

Its the Pottery Bunker theory. If you break an IAEA seal you damn well better send enough men to protect what is inside.

???

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-29 07:19:29

Just for reference on the missing explosives, two links. One for the Righties:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041 … -3700r.htm

And to be fair and balanced, one for the Lefties:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/polit … ...sition=

The first one casts much doubt on the whole "looted under the watch of Coalition troops" angle, while the second grudgingly admits that we don't really know what happened or when it happened. Not much of a killer issue for the Kerry campaign anyway.

While you're down at the bottom of the barrel, can you look for my keys John?

BWhite · 2004-10-29 07:20:24

I'm really trying hard to avoid this depressing slugfest between diehard Democrats and red-neck Republicans(! ) but then again it's almost over now anyway, so ...
This 350 tonnes of high explosive material was almost certainly there after the Coalition troops arrived, so at least some of the blame for its disappearance must be laid at the doorstep of the military. I believe it's unconscionable that such material could be left unguarded and end up commandeered by the enemy; somebody needs to be censured for that.
But, having said that, I know enough of what went on during WWII to say that this sort of thing does happen in time of war. The most incredible foul-ups have been perpetrated by German, French, Italian and British forces - not just by Americans - and it doesn't just apply to comparative incidentals like ammunition dumps either. Even the main strategic initiatives of whole army groups are prey to the vagaries of fate as battles unfold. In fact, Field Marshal Helmuth Von Moltke, German Chief of Staff 1906-1914, wrote: "No operation plan extends with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the main body of the enemy."
The difference then was that people like CNN and other news agencies weren't trailing around with cameras to anything like the same extent. And undermining the credibility of the command structure with revelations similar to this, while the lives of our troops were still on the line in an ongoing conflict, was regarded as treachery. Plenty of time for recriminations after the job was done.
But things have changed, I guess.
However, in addition to the above, I'd like to make the point that Iran and Syria have access to rather more than 350 tonnes of high explosives and have been supplying Islamic murderers with all they need to kill innocent people for many years. While losing that much explosive material was an appalling lapse, it's nothing new in the annals of war, and it's of limited importance in Iraq when you view the big picture. If the terrorists have access to unlimited money, arms, and explosives, 350 tonnes extra isn't going to make two cents worth of difference.
I'm afraid this is just another tawdry example of politicking as the U.S. election approaches. But judging by a similar campaign against John Howard, Australia's incumbent at our election a few weeks ago, the desperation of this line of attack probably bodes well for President Bush. It looks like Kerry and all the anti-Bush contingents worldwide might really be scraping the barrel with this one.
Thank God it's nearly all over!

Shaun, Bush sent far too few soldiers to accomplish the mission. That is the problem.

Patriotism cannot possibly require that we PRETEND 140,000 men can accomplish a job that needed 300,000.

To say the Emperor is naked is dis-loyal?

Is that what you are saying?

= = =

By the way, didn't Australia recently decline to send additional forces to Iraq? Or am I mistaken?

BWhite · 2004-10-29 07:23:00

Just for reference on the missing explosives, two links. One for the Righties:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041 … -3700r.htm
And to be fair and balanced, one for the Lefties:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/polit … ...sition=
The first one casts much doubt on the whole "looted under the watch of Coalition troops" angle, while the second grudgingly admits that we don't really know what happened or when it happened. Not much of a killer issue for the Kerry campaign anyway.
While you're down at the bottom of the barrel, can you look for my keys John?

Dude you missed Aaron Brown and CNN and David Kay.

The Washington Times (Moonie Times) is 24 - 36 hours behind the news cycle. An ABC affiliate embed has video of the 101st Airborne at the site WITH the seals intact.

DonPanic · 2004-10-29 07:25:25

LO

For me it breaks down like this: Bush is too soft when it comes to actually rolling over the insurgency in cities

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm … page.html]
How many Iraki corpses do you want more ?
One or two millions will satisfy you ?
Didn't Bush said he acted for the good and wealth of Irakis ?
All that is perfectly disgusting

BWhite · 2004-10-29 07:27:41

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/]Game; http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world … y4.htm]Set; http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/2 … 2/70]Match.

= = =

PS - - after the Colin Powell FUBAR with satellite imagery at the United Nations, its astonishing the Administration offers similiar imagery to defend itself on the missing explosives issue.

Another failure to acknowledge or learn from mistakes.

BWhite · 2004-10-29 07:29:05

LO
For me it breaks down like this: Bush is too soft when it comes to actually rolling over the insurgency in cities
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm … page.html]
How many Irakis corpses do you want more ?
One or two millions will satisfy you ?
Didn't Bush said he acted for the good and wealth of Irakis ?
All that is perfectly disgusting

Many Americans agree with you.

Yet Cobra's position remains untenable even from a power politics position.

We DO NOT have enough soldiers in Iraq to crush these insurgencies. We DO NOT have enough soldiers to guard critical components needed to build atomic weapons.

Prime Minister Allawi has called our leadership incompetent. Yup. Allawi is a rabid donkey, no?

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-29 07:31:58

Dude you missed Aaron Brown and CNN and David Kay.

Just trying to illustrate that no one really knows anything, they just have fragments of information that they're jamming into their own pre-conceived model of what they want to have happened.

Most likely some of the stuff was moved before US troops arrived, some was taken during the push toward Baghdad when our troops had other concerns than guarding bunkers, and based on the wildly fluctuating estimates (from 400 tons down to the lowball 3-4 tons) some of the alleged "missing" material may not have even existed or may not be missing at all. We just don't know, the Administration doesn't entirely know, and we know less than they do.

BWhite · 2004-10-29 07:38:22

Anyway, did anyone see Kerry's speech today? My god.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … ...y_dc_71
Kerry Uses Bush's Own Words to Call Him Unfit
Kerry said the weapons were not "where they were supposed to be, you were warned to guard them, you didn't guard them. They're not secure, and, guess what, according to George Bush's own words, he shouldn't be our commander in chief and I couldn't agree more."
With Tuesday's election deadlocked, Kerry took aim at the president's perceived strength -- national security -- and hammered him for a fourth consecutive day on the missing explosives.
Bush on Wednesday accused Kerry of opportunism, saying: "A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as commander in chief ... that is part of a pattern of a candidate who will say anything to get elected."
Kerry threw the words back at the president 24 hours later, announcing he was going "to apply the Bush standard" and declaring: "Mr. President, I agree with you."
"George Bush jumped to conclusions about 9/11 and Saddam Hussein," he said. "George Bush jumped to conclusions about weapons of mass destruction and he rushed to war without a plan for the peace. George Bush jumped to conclusions about how the Iraqi people would receive our troops. He not only jumped to conclusions, he ignored the facts he was given."
Holy cow. To coin a word or two from internet jargon; 0WN3D.

Cobra I agree with you.

Let's not have a President who jumps to the wrong conclusions.

Palomar · 2004-10-29 07:41:21

The difference then was that people like CNN and other news agencies weren't trailing around with cameras to anything like the same extent. And undermining the credibility of the command structure with revelations similar to this, while the lives of our troops were still on the line in an ongoing conflict, was regarded as treachery. Plenty of time for recriminations after the job was done.
But things have changed, I guess.

*This thread is rolling fast.

Yeah. And keeping in mind that most (Western at least) media likens itself to celebrity (all those reporters are "celebrities!"...yeah right), has essentially tossed out objective reporting in favor of pandering to the perceived majority opinion of John & Jane Q. Public, AND the fact that it's the same media which excuses itself and Hollywood for all the sleeze and tawdriness of "popular entertainment" because "it's what the public wants to see."

They're whores, in other words (:edit: Give them what they want to see...does anyone else have a problem with that, as news and the media's supposed objective, detached, "just the facts, ma'am" role goes?? Where are the ethics? :end edit:). So much for the media.

And what the media says seems very different from first-hand accounts of the GIs themselves, in the thick of things over there.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-29 07:46:54

We DO NOT have enough soldiers in Iraq to crush these insurgencies. We DO NOT have enough soldiers to guard critical components needed to build atomic weapons.

We do if we let a civil war happen. Divide and conquer.

If I were Roman. :;):

Components to build atomic weapons eh?

BWhite · 2004-10-29 07:50:50

We DO NOT have enough soldiers in Iraq to crush these insurgencies. We DO NOT have enough soldiers to guard critical components needed to build atomic weapons.
We do if we let a civil war happen. Divide and conquer.
If I were Roman. :;):
Components to build atomic weapons eh?

Yup, dual use stuff. Under IAEA seal.

Cobra, had Bush partitioned Iraq 14 months ago (as I called for right here at this site!) I believe his re-election would now be a cake-walk.

Josh Cryer · 2004-10-29 07:59:55

Cobra I agree with you.
Let's not have a President who jumps to the wrong conclusions.

Oh my goodness, that made my day!

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-29 08:01:11

Cobra, had Bush partitioned Iraq 14 months ago (as I called for right here at this site!) I believe his re-election would now be a cake-walk.

Perhaps, though the rabid donkeys would have attacked for that. No one but the President himself is disputing that mistakes were made, and he has political reasons for not giving up that soundbite.

C M Edwards · 2004-10-29 08:44:39

Perhaps our differences can be explained thusly:
It appears to me you believe America is holding a full house or 4 Kings while the rest of the world is largely bust. If true, to play poker aggressively is appropriate.
I however fear our hand is far weaker and the others have hands that are far stronger than you do. In that case, to bid and play aggressively is folly.

Bluffing seems the traditional option. And mind your tells.

I'm quite happy with the idea of disbanding the Iraqi army. Disbanding the Iraqi civil service and deliberately allowing its offices to be looted... not so happy.

Bush seldom admits error of any kind and often ignores what he's told. He has a bad case of CBT (Cain't Be Told). Pretty good bluffer, though; I can see why he makes a fine politician.

Continuing the poker analogy, we may not have a good enough hand, but bets are already on the table. Calling now keeps the odds flat, which means we're more likely to lose, and it's too late to fold. By continuing to play our current hand, we can improve our odds by waiting out those more cautious than ourselves.

No, we should never have gotten into this stupid game in the first place. The ante was too high and the pot was too small. But we're in it now, and we can't turn back the clock.

It's no time to be timid. Thanks to prior events, timid is no longer our best option.

Its the Pottery Bunker theory. If you break an IAEA seal you damn well better send enough men to protect what is inside.

Damn straight. Damn war. :realllymad:

BWhite · 2004-10-29 09:02:17

Cobra, had Bush partitioned Iraq 14 months ago (as I called for right here at this site!) I believe his re-election would now be a cake-walk.
Perhaps, though the rabid donkeys would have attacked for that. No one but the President himself is disputing that mistakes were made, and he has political reasons for not giving up that soundbite.

Sure. Rabid donkeys would be attacking, without traction.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-10-29 10:05:24

Saddam was pretty much a petty dictator, he was once a force but the first gulf war and years on sanctions pretty much left him a miserable tyrant, Saddam was just one of many madmen rulers around the globe in fact he was maybe one of the weaker ones are certainly no direct danger to the USA. UN chief weapons inspector certainly didn't like the way Bush went about his business and he even lashed out at the ' b*stards ' in the Whitehouse on the conduct of the Iraq operation. In an extraordinary departure from the diplomatic language with which he has come to be associated, Mr Blix assailed his critics in both Washington and Iraq.
:down: another bad result for Bush :rant:
Meanwhile there are other tyrants, other mad nations and other dictators who know that the US army is pushed to a limit, they know the USA will be stuck in Iraq for a while so they are doing all the bad stuff while America is pre-occupied with the hole of despair in Iraq. Many officials now suspect Iran is close to developing a nuclear weapon, Earlier, Iran and the European Union failed to agree on getting Tehran to suspend all uranium enrichment activities. There was mention of a report which stated where they have developed a missile with the range of 1,250 miles. Another concern is that Iran has been getting together three nuclear submarines.Those subs are capable of staying submerged for 60 days and capable of launching nuclear missiles . There is also the question if the administration has enough dollars to back the Iraq operation, he has seen a massive rise in health care, the prices of oil have skyrocketed, and unemployments numbers are soaring. Iran knows that the Us might not be able to afford another battle as the cost of Iraq has been killing the US economy
Meanwhile North Korea has been shouting out loud. Some would think that the North Koreans have serious anger and issues against the likes of the European and Chinese, however the madman in charge sees the USA as its number one enemy. Sadly there is only so much the likes of the EU and China can do, they can tell North Koreas leader to stop but it is unlikely that such a dictator will listen to reason. In a series of statements Japanese-borne expert on North Korea's military has stated in the past that North Korea has hydrogen bombs the Dr. Kim asserts that the nukes will strike American cities if the Bush administration imposes economic sanctions or other hostile moves against North Korea. There is a clear contrast in a US policy of pushing North Korean nuclear disarmament and a Kim policy of developing nuclear weapons for self-preservation. North Korea reportedly has ICBM's ready that can loft a nuclear payload to the east coast of the United States. Some reports say the regime has a Taepo Dong 1 and the Taepo Dong-II ICBM currently and plans to build more. CIA Director George Tenet warned Congress that North Korea had developed its long-range Taepodong-II ICBM to the point where it was capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to North America. But the media were so busy trumpeting spurious administration stories about Iraq’s mythical chemical trucks—a.k.a. “Winnebagos of death”—that they barely noted Tenet’s deeply alarming revelation. The State Department's top arms control official says North Korea is "the world's foremost proliferator of ballistic missiles and related technology to rogue areas.
Meanwhile things don't look so good in Iraq, Call it the WMD-lite scandal: the disappearance of 380 tons of dual-use explosives in Iraq. Certainly Republican Machiavelli-in-charge Karl Rove didn't see this surprise coming - hitting the Bush administration like a jet converted into a missile. So this is the crucial point in the whole affair: the Pentagon - as well as the IAEA - knew the 380 tons were stored at al-Qaqaa, but US troops didn't make any move to search for them or secure them, because this was not a priority at the time. On Friday Edwards said, "We know that the weapons were there before the invasion. We know that the president was told they needed to be secured once the invasion occurred. We know that the president did not order that they be secured, and we know that now they are missing. "So regardless of the timing when they disappeared, we know they're gone and we know the president was supposed to secure them and he didn't do it. This week White House spokesman Scott McClellan all but admitted that securing Iraq's oil fields and the Ministry of Oil was a much higher priority than securing 345,000kg (760,000 pounds) of the most powerful non-nuclear explosives around (less than one pound blew up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland). In itself, this admission blows up the Bush administration's whole case for invading Iraq, weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It seems no matter who gets elected there's a whole lot of work to do. :down: :rant:

BWhite · 2004-10-29 10:07:41

Wow!

http://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/in … ml]Another unguarded ammo dump.

Take home point? We went in too light. Check the NewMars logs. BEFORE we invaded I posted my concern that we would not send enough forces to win "Round Two" because Bush underestimated the complexity of building a stable Iraq after Saddam was gone.

General Shineski said we needed 300,000 men and Bush fired him. Can't let facts conflict with the theory.

The aid workers say they informed Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the highest ranking Army officer in Iraq in October 2003 but were told that the United States did not have enough troops to seal off the facility, which included more than 60 bunkers packed with munitions.

= = =

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/ … .html]Ammo dump #3?

US soldiers are dying to roadside bombs because we failed to send enogh soldiers to post guards at Saddam's many bunkers filled with explosives. Explosives that were looted and turned into IEDs.

If its not the fault of Bush, then who?

The looting of Iraq's arsenal
The same month Al Qaqaa was being stripped of high explosives, I warned my military intelligence unit of another weapons facility that was being cleaned out. But nothing was done.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By David DeBatto
Oct. 29, 2004 |
When I read last Sunday's New York Times story of the missing explosives from the Iraqi weapons storage facility south of Baghdad at Al Qaqaa, it brought back memories from my time with the Army National Guard's 223rd Military Intelligence Battalion in Iraq last year. Bad memories. In the Times story, Iraqi scientists who worked at Al Qaqaa described how the facility was looted of almost 400 tons of high explosives right after the American troops swept through the area in April 2003 and failed to secure the site.
But Al Qaqaa is not the whole story. The same month it was being looted, I learned of another major weapons and ammunition storage facility, near my battalion's base at Camp Anaconda, that was unguarded and targeted by looters. But despite my repeated warnings -- and those of other U.S. intelligence agents -- nothing was done to secure this facility, as it was systematically stripped of enough weapons and explosives to equip anti-U.S. insurgents with enough roadside improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, for years to come.

BWhite · 2004-10-29 10:16:36

From the Oregonian report:

A Pentagon official Thursday acknowledged that the United States had been forced to leave many ammunition dumps in Iraq unguarded. The official, who declined to be identified, said the U.S. military had identified about 900 sensitive weapons sites in Iraq but had assigned only "a brigade-sized force" to deal with them. A brigade typically has about 3,500 soldiers.
"The country was made into a major ammo dump by the Hussein regime as they prepared to fight, and have left cleanup to us," the official said by e-mail. "If that were our only job we could devote more troops to the task, but the majority of our troops are fighting the enemy. When bullets are flying you've got to decide on your priorities, and sending a bullet back is the preferred alternative."
The official said he could not speak to how Sanchez had handled the report about Ukhaider.

Maybe that is why General Shineski said we needed 300,000 soldiers.

Josh Cryer · 2004-10-29 10:29:11

And all it takes is for one, just one of those ammo dumps to be looted, to give the "insurgency" to bomb for a very long time.

Pentagon is having a briefing now about the explosives, looks like they're trying to explain it away by saying Saddam moved them before the US got in. Not done talking yet though.

Paul Krugman wrote something interesting today: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/opini … ugman.html

Just in case, the right is already explaining away President Bush's defeat: it's all the fault of the "liberal media," particularly The New York Times, which, so the conspiracy theory goes, deliberately timed its report on the looted Al Qaqaa explosives - a report all the more dastardly because it was true - for the week before the election.
It's remarkable that the right-wingers who dominate cable news and talk radio are still complaining about a liberal stranglehold over the media. But, that absurdity aside, they're missing a crucial point: Al Qaqaa is hardly the only tale of incompetence and mendacity to break to the surface in the last few days. Here's a quick look at some of the others:
Letting Osama get away Just before the story about Al Qaqaa broke, the Bush-Cheney campaign was frantically trying to debunk John Kerry's statement that Mr. Bush let Osama bin Laden get away when he was cornered at Tora Bora. That getaway, Mr. Kerry asserts, was possible because the administration "outsourced" the job of closing off escape routes to local Afghan warlords.
In response, Gen. Tommy Franks claimed that we don't know that Osama was at Tora Bora, and, anyway, we didn't outsource the work of catching him. Dick Cheney called Mr. Kerry's claims "absolute garbage." But multiple reports from 2001 and early 2002 confirm Mr. Kerry's version. As Peter Bergen, a terrorism expert, writes, Mr. Kerry's charge is "an accurate reflection of the historical record."
Letting Zarqawi get away On Monday The Wall Street Journal confirmed an earlier report that in 2002 the military drew up plans for a strike on the base of the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in an area of Iraq not under Saddam's control. But civilian officials vetoed the attack - probably because they thought it might undermine political support for the war against Saddam. So Mr. Zarqawi, like Osama, was given the chance to kill another day.
The situation in Iraq Dick Cheney is telling supporters that Iraq is a "remarkable success story." But the news from Iraq just keeps getting worse. After 49 Iraqi National Guard recruits were killed, execution style, even Ayad Allawi, the Iraqi prime minister - who usually acts as a de facto spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign - accused coalition forces of "gross negligence." It's now clear that the insurgency is much larger than U.S. officials initially acknowledged, and that Iraqi security forces have been heavily infiltrated.
$70 billion more Earlier this week The Washington Post reported that administration officials were planning to seek an additional $70 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan after the election. Whatever the precise number, it has long been obvious to knowledgeable observers that this was coming, but the news will come as a shock to many people who still don't realize how deep a quagmire Mr. Bush has gotten us into.
(snip)
[...] the news media have spent the last few days discussing substance. And that's very bad news for Mr. Bush.

Okay, Pentagon briefing summed up: many tons of plastic explosives were removed and destroyed. The numbers are questionable. But basically the numbers are unkown, but we have a witness to the destruction of an unknown amount of RDX.

edit, but, heh, we don't know where the explosives were from, just that some in that "area" were exploded, and that they only went into buildings that were "opened." This all happened 5 days before the video was made (so that suggests that at the bare minimum the explosives in the videos were not destroyed on the 18th). This story isn't dead.

Edited By Josh Cryer on 1099068685

Palomar · 2004-10-29 12:05:41

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Hallowe … ]Halloween Political Cartoons

*From Daryl Cagle's site. Coincidentally, as I was downloading the page (what an energy hog, dang it) I was thinking about the cast of characters who are the 1st cartoon. (Psychic? :hm: ) -laugh-

--Cindy

(And speaking of Halloween, here's some
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic … my-related stuff posted recently)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2004-10-28 21:22:45

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#152 2004-10-28 22:47:43

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#153 2004-10-29 05:59:52

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#154 2004-10-29 06:20:36

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#155 2004-10-29 07:14:28

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#156 2004-10-29 07:19:29

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#157 2004-10-29 07:20:24

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#158 2004-10-29 07:23:00

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#159 2004-10-29 07:25:25

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#160 2004-10-29 07:27:41

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#161 2004-10-29 07:29:05

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#162 2004-10-29 07:31:58

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#163 2004-10-29 07:38:22

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#164 2004-10-29 07:41:21

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#165 2004-10-29 07:46:54

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#166 2004-10-29 07:50:50

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#167 2004-10-29 07:59:55

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#168 2004-10-29 08:01:11

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#169 2004-10-29 08:44:39

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#170 2004-10-29 09:02:17

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#171 2004-10-29 10:05:24

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#172 2004-10-29 10:07:41

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#173 2004-10-29 10:16:36

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#174 2004-10-29 10:29:11

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#175 2004-10-29 12:05:41

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

Board footer