The Other Side reads this Times story and decides, "That's our topline message of the day."
Our team reads it and predicts (accurately) that those guys will assume the worst (about our military), ignore the reality (that Saddam had lots of weapons and was a threat), and sidestep their own previous sidesteps (around their convoluted position on the War).
So, the Stentorian Senator wants to talk about Iraq, Saddam's weapons, and our safety in the world.
Ok, fine by us at the campaign.
[Meanwhile, inside the US government, I know that hard-working military, intelligence and homeland security experts will continue to bust their tail-ends in the daily struggle to make us safer. They're succeeding, folks, because we're on offense and we're fighting the worst of them over there, on their turf.]
But most of you are focused on the election and I gotta say we're on offense at the campaign, too. Lots of positive signs in states that went for the Other Side last time.
More later. Sorry I don't have time to respond to most of the input and commentary.
I wonder who had more guards and weaponry securing the IAEA-sealed & monitored al Qaqaa facility -- Saddam or Dubya?
.
Posted by: Jeffraham Prestonian | October 25, 2004 at 10:35 AM
Would a competent administration, knowing of 380 tons of RDX and HMX on a battlefield, under IAEA seal, just walk off and leave it there? I mean, the $#!+ is EXPLOSIVES -- why not BLOW IT UP, even if you don't have the manpower to secure it?
.
Posted by: Jeffraham Prestonian | October 25, 2004 at 10:44 AM
I guess I wrote about the wrong subject eairler. We are on the misplaced 380 tons of explosives. A lot of you have never been out of this country, I can tell by your lack of understanding of what goes on in different countrys. Also your lack of understanding of the military. I have lived in other countrys & I have been to the middle east. Yes! it is the people on the ground that should have guarded these explosives. I do not think any President could have forseen this. Its real strange thatit comes out a week before the elections. I have 3 childern in the military. Need I say more??? And you ask " have any of them been in the middle east fighting" the answer would YES!! You are VERY lucky to live in this country & able to talk about your President in such manner. In other countrys you would suffer very much pain& death. Trish
Posted by: Patricia | October 25, 2004 at 10:50 AM
You're on offense?
"You" are an occupying army engaged in guerilla warfare. You're on defense by definition.
"You" are also an incumbent presidential administration. That means you're on defense by definition too.
The United States lost the offensive in the war on terror after Afghanistan. And lost the war on terror when it let a fear of terror (a fear of fear) override democracy. "You" stopped playing by democratic rules (human rights, geneva conventions), and thereby lost, instantly, by walkover. I'm sorry "you" persist in seeings things the way that you do.
Sincerely,
a reader from Norway.
Posted by: Martin GL | October 25, 2004 at 10:55 AM
Patricia -- We're "on" the "misplaced" 380 tons of explosives? Gee, this stuff was there, 18 months ago, when our WMD team was testing the stuff at al Qaqaa to see if it were bio/chem weaponry. Then, it was looted. We didn't want the IAEA there. Obviously -- because THEY told us before the invasion about this site, and what they could expect to find there. After eighteen months, we're sure "on" it.
As for the timing, I'm sure the intel community is actively involved.
.
Posted by: Jeffraham Prestonian | October 25, 2004 at 10:56 AM
I just want to hear Bush try to pronounce al Qaqaa.
Posted by: Dick Woodcock | October 25, 2004 at 11:00 AM
Who the hell keeps spreading rumors that I'm a lesbian?
Posted by: Mary Cheney | October 25, 2004 at 11:00 AM
Did you see Clinton rallying this morning with Kerry? Bill got twice the amount of attention. He loved it. He really didn't give a damn about Kerry. Bill Clinton was the rock star. For the wrong reasons! But one thing's clear. Kerry does not have the charisma nor personality of Clinton. Next to him, Kerry looked like a stiff pole of uninspired wood walking awkwardly near the former President.
Ditto reason why Gore never campaigned with Clinton. He would look pathetic next to him. But compared to Kerry, even Gore is CHARISMATIC and warm.
Posted by: rosette | October 25, 2004 at 11:21 AM
The positive news from Iraq ? We had 50 poor Iraqi trainees killed gangland style yesterday, several car bombs and other death. And now this story.
Anyone claiming there is a lot of positive news from Iraq are as deluded as our fearful leader.
Posted by: erg | October 25, 2004 at 11:22 AM
Folks, the President is just a normal person like you and me.
And some people are just not that good at their jobs.
They screw things up.
In the case of George W. Bush, he's a major screw up, especially at the most demanding job on earth, U.S. president.
He didn't stop 911, he didn't catch or kill bin Laden, he didn't win the war in Iraq he started and instead turned that crappy-little country that was no real threat to us into a soldier-killing hellhole.
He's pissed off about 75% of the world with the Iraq war and new terrorists are signing up to fight what they see as his religious crusade against all Muslims, each and every day.
Iraq had no WMD's but it did have a lot of army weapons and bombs that everyone knew about and that every country has.
Bush's war plan failed to make sure those were secured.
Now the insurgents killing our soldiers and kidnapping aid workers are using those bombs against us. This is an unforgivable failure of planning.
I'm missed a lot of the horrible ways Bush has screwed up the country and the world, I'm sure, but for now please just don't vote for Dubya
Posted by: Tucker Achoo | October 25, 2004 at 11:23 AM
Fine by you at "The Campaign," eh? Well, it's not "fine" by anyone that's getting blown to bits by the stolen explosives. Your blaming the military won't fly. Bush is the CIC, the "War President," who is "working hard" to keep us safe. You can run but you can't hide. Accountability begins on November 2. Smell you later!
Posted by: Juan Valdez | October 25, 2004 at 11:28 AM
I think the Democrats are just mad at Condi Rice for giving speeches in the battleground states and simply wants to blame her for something.
Let's face it, Condi scares them. She is a brilliant, successful, powerful woman in a man's world. She carries herself with style and dignity, she is never nasty like Hillary, nor obnoxious like Theresa,but she makes her point. Dr Rice, you go girrrrrl !!!
Posted by: Rosette | October 25, 2004 at 11:29 AM
"because we're on offense and we're fighting the worst of them over there, on their turf."
I've never understood this ridiculous either/or proposition: "Well, if we're fighting 'em over there, terrorists can't possibly do something over here AT THE SAME TIME!" It has to be one or the other!
Guess what? It's both. Bush has created thousands of new terrorists. (He can't create jobs, but he's doing wonders on the terrorist front!) There are more than enough terrorists out there to blow up US soldiers in Iraq, with the explosives Bush was too stupid to secure, AND blow up innocent civilians in the US.
Terrorists now have the capacity to perform 760,000 acts of Lockerbie-scale violence, thanks to Bush. That's "keeping us safe"? That's "being on the offense"? That's beyond pathetic. "Staggering incompetence" is a very kind description.
Posted by: 8moredays | October 25, 2004 at 11:34 AM
NEW YORK Sen. John Kerry continued his raid on newspapers that backed President Bush in 2000, grabbing 24 new "flip-flops," plus The Washington Post, which was a major supporter of the war in Iraq. The Democrat has now won endorsements from at least 35 papers that went for Bush in 2000, while Bush has earned only two Gore papers.
However, Bush got a prize in the key state of Ohio, The Columbus Dispatch.
Kerry now leads Bush 125-96 in endorsements in E&P's exclusive tally, and he leads by about 16 million to 10 million in the circulation of backing papers.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000683265
.
Posted by: Jeffraham Prestonian | October 25, 2004 at 12:04 PM
Hey, all you raving Kool-Aid Lefties - if you want to know the truth, go see the Captain:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
This is a non story - unless you want the story to be about the disappearance of weapons and munitions, possibly into Syria or Iraq. You might concentrate on defending Kerry's character since the revealing of his latest Fantastic Fantasy with the UN Security Council. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Another Kerry Lie.
Posted by: rls | October 25, 2004 at 12:07 PM
Bush failed to stop the looting of weapons that are now being used on US troops.
I'd like to see you apologists tell some limbless soldier, "You should be lucky that you weren't hit with some WMD that we swear got taken to Syria!"
Fools.
Bush is incompetent. Needs to be fired.
Posted by: Michigan | October 25, 2004 at 12:13 PM
rls: "Hey, all you raving Kool-Aid Lefties - if you want to know the truth"
The truth has an anti-Bush bias.
.
Posted by: Jeffraham Prestonian | October 25, 2004 at 12:17 PM
This isn't just a headline. There are hundreds of tons of explosives in the hands of the bad guys now. Call it one a-bomb per ton (some assembly required), or roughly 3-5 car bombs per ton, or a thousand roadside IEDs per ton.
We let them grab it, and there's blame to go around aplenty in the Administration, and the odds of getting any significant portion of it back are pretty poor. Al Qaeda is now much more heavily armed than they were a few months ago. I think this makes it pretty clear our noble soldiers have been given a battle strategy and operational support that's simply not getting the job done. Is anyone accountable for that? Is the White House doing anything to solve this? (Other than trying like crazy to make it John Kerry's fault?)
Posted by: Rob | October 25, 2004 at 12:21 PM
Teddy Roosevelt's comments were never more applicable:
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiently ... who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who have never known either victory or defeat."
My answer to the many critics of our President and our country's war efforts is always the same:
What has John Kerry accomplished toward solving the problem in question, and indeed, what has John Kerry ever accomplished during his 20 years in the Senate?
Another quote comes to mind: "So easy to criticize, so hard to do" (anonymous).
Posted by: Stewart Griffith | October 25, 2004 at 12:22 PM
Jeffraham:
The truth has no bias. The truth is neither good nor bad, it is simply the truth. The differernce between you and me is I do not fear the truth. When the truth is not favorable to my candidate I do not ignore it. However you Kool-Aidees ignore the truth about Kerry. How can anyone that has any integrity, honesty or character continue to defend a man like Kerry who constantly has Fantastic Fantasies regarding his Most Amazing Achievements.
Just today we find that Kerry's meeting with the UN Security Council, replete with descriptions of the conference table and conversations over two hours, occurred ONLY in Kerry's mind. How stupid to make up lies that can be easily debunked. How do you explain the lack of intelligence? Could it be that he is less intelligent than Bush? Oh, yeah, that's right - he is.
Posted by: rls | October 25, 2004 at 12:28 PM
"The credit belongs to the man in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood."
Steward, you mean from brush clearing?
Posted by: TedRall | October 25, 2004 at 12:33 PM
Great! Pontificating about critics all of of your systems now? Back to the questions: Which members of the Administration and/or military are accountable for the loss of 380 tons of milspec HE to our enemies? Is the White House doing anything to address this in any way? If so, how? New patrols? Bomb sniffing dogs? Diplomatic overtures to our Iraqi friends? What?
Posted by: Rob | October 25, 2004 at 12:38 PM
rls -- Let's just say I don't think one can see the whole, clear, undisputed truth while wearing Rove-colored glasses, or you'd have a problem voting for people who would "out" a CIA WMD counterproliferation operative out of craven political retribution. I find your faith in people who don't blow up 380 tons of RDX and HMX troublingly short of a thoughtful analysis of truth.
.
Posted by: Jeffraham Prestonian | October 25, 2004 at 12:44 PM
Rob,
Go here and read the report,
http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp
then realize that as of NOW, there is no proof of these allegations. The munitions at this site represent less than 1% of the munitions in Iraq. Is it important that, maybe, they were not secured? Sure it is. However in a land of multiple munition caches, there is such a thing as triage. Get to the most accessible and largest and take care of them first. If you are interested in what is happening in Iraq re the munitions, visit some of the Iraqi bloggers.
I guess to finally answer your question, yes, somone should take the responsibility for these munitions, if we can determine if they were there and they since disappeared.
Posted by: rls | October 25, 2004 at 12:45 PM
Jeffraham
Who "outed" a CIA operative? If you're talking about Plame, the last I heard, they're still trying to pin that one down. Ask Miller of the Times. The only ones I know who lied in that affair, that has been proven, is Wilson and Plame.
As far as faith in the people who "did not" blow up the munitions, I have tremendous faith in them; The US Military. Since I am a Vet of that fine establishment. Go find the truth, if you can stand it:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp
You still have not addressed the "Integrity, integrity, integrity" issue of YOUR candidate of choice. I must assume that you have the same moral code of values that he does. You should read some of his "Fantastic Fantasies" - really good fiction.
Posted by: rls | October 25, 2004 at 12:56 PM