« Red Sox Nation for Bush | Main | Electoral Expert: Kerry Adds Nothing! »



A 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew in Iraq shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein was in the area where tons of explosives disappeared.

The missing explosives are now an issue in the presidential debate. Democratic candidate John Kerry is accusing President Bush of not securing the site they allegedly disappeared from. President Bush says no one knows if the ammunition was taken before or after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003 when coalition troops moved in to the area.

Using GPS technology and talking with members of the 101st Airborne 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS determined our crew embedded with them may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where that ammunition disappeared. Our crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa. On April 18, 2003 they drove two or three miles north into what is believed to be that area.

During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew bunker after bunker of material labelled explosives. Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get in and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords.

"We can stick it in those and make some good bombs." a soldier told our crew.

There were what appeared to be fuses for bombs. They also found bags of material men from the 101st couldn't identify, but box after box was clearly marked "explosive."

In one bunker, there were boxes marked with the name "Al Qaqaa", the munitions plant where tons of explosives allegedly went missing.

Once the doors to the bunkers were opened, they weren't secured. They were left open when the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew and the military went back to their base.

"We weren't quite sure what were looking at, but we saw so much of it and it didn't appear that this was being secured in any way," said photojournalist Joe Caffrey. "It was several miles away from where military people were staying in their tents".

Officers with the 101st Airborne told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS that the bunkers were within the U.S. military perimeter and protected. But Caffrey and former 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Reporter Dean Staley, who spent three months in Iraq, said Iraqis were coming and going freely.


I've seen several posts from the left about this lately and wanted to put this out there.

It appears, like most accomplishments of conservative administrations, that it's efforts show up under the next administration which will in turn take full credit for something they're against and had nothing to do with accomplishing.

Living with the GOP: Pro-lifers have reason to stay with the Republican party. By Michael J. New


"Some have even argued that a president who supports abortion rights may better be able to advance the goals of the pro-life movement.

"...However, a careful analysis of the data from the 1980s and 1990s indicates that these arguments are flawed. In fact, the success of pro-life candidates has resulted in real reductions in the abortion rate."

Jeffraham Prestonian

Virginia -- I suppose, then, it's a statistical fluke that every year of the Clinton administration, we have ever-decreasing numbers of abortions, while under Dubya's first term, each year's number of abortions has INCREASED.

facts hate bush


Deaths of Iraqis have soared by 100,000 since the start of the Iraq (news - web sites) war and many of the victims have been women and children, public health experts from the United States said on Thursday.

"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq," researchers from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland said in a report published online by The Lancet medical journal.

Ronald Reagan

For any fence-sitters out there here are excerpts from a thoughtful endorsement from the Economist:

Mr Bush's record during the past three years has been both inspiring and disturbing. Mr Bush was inspiring in the way he reacted to the new world in which he, and America, found itself. He grasped the magnitude of the challenge well... It was a resolute, measured effort, which was reassuringly sober about the likely length of the campaign against Osama bin Laden and the elusiveness of anything worth the name of victory...

Invading Iraq was not a mistake.... But changing the regime so incompetently was a huge mistake. By having far too few soldiers to provide security and by failing to pay Saddam's remnant army, a task that was always going to be long and hard has been made much, much harder. Such incompetence is no mere detail: thousands of Iraqis have died as a result and hundreds of American soldiers...

If Mr Bush had meanwhile been making progress elsewhere in the Middle East, such mistakes might have been neutralised. But he hasn't.... To succeed... America needs a president capable of admitting to mistakes and of learning from them...


Message for Bruce Stringsteen

Mr Springsteen:
Isn't it pathetic that while you chase John Kerry with your guitar and sing your windpipes out.... your own Homestate of New Jersey is being handed over to George Bush!
tch..tch.. Mr Springsteen, maybe you should stay at home and guard the homefront first.
You're making a fool of yourself.You'll lose a lot of listeners because of this assenine move.


George W. Bush is responsible for 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq.

Deaths of Iraqis have soared by 100,000 since the start of the Iraq war and many of the victims have been women and children, public health experts from the United States said on Thursday.

"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq," researchers from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland said in a report published online by The Lancet medical journal.


wasted potential

Jeffraham - are you serious about the loyalty oath thing? To answer your question, no, I did not sign anything. I waited in line for a ticked, showed my driver's license and got 2 tickets.

By the way, it is now reported - 15,000 at the rally, 4000 outside the rally listening on loudspeakers that couldn't get in. Not bad for a county that had 30,000 total voters in 2000.

Of course, we outnumber the democrats 3 to 1 here or so. We have only one elected democrat elected to the city council, other than that all, local, state and federal officials are Republican.

And guess what, we have one of the lowest unemployment figures in the state, one of the lowest crime rates in the state, several businesses coming here to open up factories and distribution centers, etc... Many of the factories coming here are "insourcing" plants from Japanese firms who do business with Honda. In addition, we have Cooper Tire, Whirlpool, Marathon Oil and Ball Metal plants who have been here for years and they have been adding workers! This of course has led to an explosion in our retail market - we actually have a mall in a town of 40,000 people. My wife works at one of the department stores and our store actually competes for sales with stores in much larger communities. Consumers drive to our nice little town from miles around to shop and eat because it is a nice place.

This is all possible because our local government entices these companies to come here and stay through our tax policies towards corporations. The problem is, many communities controlled by the democrats have not been proactive towards business while the times have been changing, meaning that when factories or plants close, they are not able to replace those jobs. Not all of the jobs lost in Ohio moved overseas - several of them moved south to communities willing to work with companies. This explains the census numbers shift in recent years from the midwest to the south. These communities (controlled primarily by Republicans) are doing a much better job for their constituents than the mostly union-controlled democratic communities.

It is good to be in Bush country!

wasted potential

JP - So let me see, those who think abortion is wrong actually limit abortions in our country? Without even looking at the postings, I can tell you this - federal dollars were not spent on abortion since Bush took office and they were during Clinton's tenure.

You know, the rhetoric is getting pretty ridiculous in this campaign on the left. Let's see - John Kerry voted against making it criminal to deliver a baby 2/3 then jamming something into its skull, sucking the brains out. Having gone with my wife to view ultrasound pictures of each our three children, I can tell you that even at 8 weeks, the baby has arms, legs and a heartbeat. How can anyone justify killing these babies?

In my opinion, this ritual is reminiscent of the ancient cultures who sacrificed their babies to the gods. The only difference is they did out of fear and ignorance. We do it today for convenience.

Anyone this calloused and misguided on the issue of partial birth abortion cannot and will not get my vote. I do not care if they are Republican, Democrate, Independent or whatever.

I am sorry, but this is a strong personal issue for me. I do not want my tax dollars killing those babies, and that is why I will give my undying support to President Bush in this election.

No I did not have to sign an oath for that!


it's all the troops fault!


but i'm all for killing those fetuses!


me too!


yes, put me down for baby-killing, as well. Hell, kill 'em after they're born, if they're towelheads. Can't let osama be the world civilian-killin champ. We're number one!


this won't get me in trouble with the church, will it? i mean the baby-killing.

wasted potential

Guilliani/Pataki/Arnold - I live in OH and I have been fortunate enough here to have always had a pro-life candidate to vote for locally, statewide and nationally. If any of these 3 were on the ticket this year or in 2008 - I would not vote for them.

Personally - after Bush's 8 years - I would like to see George Voinovich run for the presidency!

Jeffraham Prestonian

wasted -- Still, you support a candidate because of what he SAYS -- not because of the the RESULTS of his policies (higher abortion rate under Bush). Words speak louder than actions.

wasted potential

Bush said he would not federally fund abortion - he has not. Clinton did. Kerry says he will. That's all I need to know about it.

It is currently legal to perform this infanticide here, so people are free to spend their own money to kill these babies. However, I do not want a cent of my money to go to this. I quit supporting the United Way over their support of Planned Parenthood for the same reason.

I have not reviewed your facts on the whole abortion is up under Bush argument, but I will and if that is the case, it probably means the pro-life forces relaxed once they saw Bush come into the presidency.

My wife has helped at many crisis pregnancy centers. The women contemplating these things are usually in a tough spot - the guy ran on them, they are teenagers still in school, etc ... I have a lot of respect for those who actually do something to help these women.

On a sidenote - I condemn those who kill abortionists in the name of life.


does killing infants in iraq count as infanticide if the infants had actually been born? not that i have a problem with that; it's not like i'm catholic or anything - wait a minute, i am. (the 3 marriages thing always confuses me.)


i too am catholic - fuck you popie, whatcha gonna do, deny me communion? you think i'm some kind of democrat?


i too have the magic (R) following my name, which shields me from my church.


it's the troops' fault that my first two marriages fell apart!

wasted potential

Killing of the innocent is wrong no matter where it takes place, but last time I checked, we were not going from house to house like in days of King Herod, seeking out Iraqi children to murder. During times of war, civilians will die. This was the case during World War 1, World War Ii, Korea and Vietnam and and it cannot be any different in Iraq.

Killing of civilians in a time of war is to be avoided at all costs and regretted each time it happens. Killing of babies for convenience is just not acceptable behavior in a supposedly civilized society.

Ronald Reagan

wasted potential: in your view should the mother be prosecuted for seeking/having an abortion. How should she be punished?

wasted potential

This will sound heartless - but yes, the mother should be prosecuted for seeking to break the law (assuming it was illegal) and kill her baby. The doctor should also be prosecuted.

wasted potential

RR - as to your last question, let me ask you this. The woman who drowned her children in the bathtub, should she be prosecuted? The mother who left her children too long in a hot car and they died from overheating, should she be prosecuted? Should the teenage girl who gave birth to her baby at school and then threw it in the dumpster be prosecuted?

See, the whole argument changes when you consider that the person being killed in abortion is a child. We would not stand for mothers to kill their young once they are out of the womb, why do we stand for it while they are in the womb?

The comments to this entry are closed.