« "Why is it even close?" | Main | And Coming Up Next... »

Comments

Jeffraham Prestonian

I agree, Tucker. Stealing two generations of Americans' future prosperity, running up record debt, *all the while* continuing to defend TAX CUTS in a TIME OF WAR -- something UNSEEN in the history of civilization! -- those are all completely sufficient reasons to dump this incompetent bunch comprising the current administration.

What kind of conservative can support THAT?
.

wasted potential

Jeffraham - Remember this from last night:

"This whole story will be dead by Thursday, debunked in the same manner as the 60 minutes National Guard story."

It is only Wednesday night, but still think I am whistling past the graveyard?

Jeffraham Prestonian

wasted: "It is only Wednesday night, but still think I am whistling past the graveyard?"

I doubt the story's over, but I'm pretty sure it's getting ready to be eclipsed, as I mentioned yesterday.
.

Henry Schlatman

Tucker,
What about DURING THE FREAKING WAR? Do you really think that America is that dumb? Please show us the DoD pictures.

wasted potential

Jeffraham - the backlash that will start tomorrow will provide Kerry with 3 choices: (1) Keep talking about the issue while the Pentagon releases visual evidence that the story is over (2) Come out say "Golly, gee whiz, the NY Times was wrong (3) Stop talking about it and move on to the next "bomb."

Question - will the news media now have to rush this next story into the headlines before Monday at 1630 to stop the bleeding from their botching of this story? If so, without even knowing what it is, I will predict it will also be debunked and backfire by Monday. If they wait until Monday evening, it may have some impact.

Jeffraham Prestonian

wasted -- Your premises omit the question most obvious: If we took pictures of the stuff leaving, uh, why did we LET it LEAVE?
.

T. Kosciusko

>>those headlines still don't comprise a compelling case to replace a strong leader in a time of war<<

What prescient wisdom that in March of 2003 Our Leader began laying the groundwork for his re-election campaign by creating a "time of war".

Phoenician in a time of Romans

Tucker: "I'm stunned the Other Side wants to keep talking about Iraq. It plays into the President's strongest suit among undecided voters."

The ability to suppress bad news until after the election?

wasted potential

Stealing two generations of Americans' future prosperity, running up record debt, *all the while* continuing to defend TAX CUTS in a TIME OF WAR -- something UNSEEN in the history of civilization! -- those are all completely sufficient reasons to dump this incompetent bunch comprising the current administration.

What kind of conservative can support THAT?

Jeffraham: When I was a kid during the Reagan years, we had deficits and the talk was that my generation would be "paying the bill" for those deficits. I remember there was talk that when I was working, the federal tax rate would be like 60 to 70% just to pay the interest on the debt.

Well, that is not the case and won't be for these deficits and my kids either. Stimulating consumers to spend more money with higher after tax income (up 10% since the tax cust) and promoting investment with lower capital gains rates, these deficits will soon turn into surpluses in a few years without the government having to do anything.

wasted potential

Jeffraham - Why did we let it leave? We had not invaded yet. What do you propose that we should have done? Is the outcry now not that we should not have removed Saddam, but that we didn't go to war with Saddam soon enough?

Jeffraham Prestonian

wasted -- What numbers are you smoking? Whose after tax income is 10% higher since the tax cuts?
.

Jeffraham Prestonian

wasted: "What do you propose that we should have done? Is the outcry now not that we should not have removed Saddam, but that we didn't go to war with Saddam soon enough?"

Heh! Next you'll be telling me we hadn't decided to invade when those photos were taken. :)
.

Ronald Reagan

Two questions for Bush supporters: do you think that civilian leadership in the administration were over-optimistic in their view of how the Iraqi people would respond to US troops? If you think the administration was over-optimistic, do you think this might have led to mistakes in postwar planning, for example, by under-estimating the number of troops necessary to secure the country?

This is a real question. I'm just trying to get a sense of how much distance there is between the Bush supporters and the Kerry supporters.

wasted potential

Well, I don't have the backup, but I will try and find it. I heard it quoted by some folks, but won't name them until I find the backup.

On this whole explosives story and the one to follow, come on, you're an intelligent person. You know this story at the least has enough against it to produce a stalemate, if not another backlash against the liberal media groups (in this case, the NY Times, or as they should be renamed The Liberal Enquirer - because liberal minds want to hear what they want to hear):)

Also, you never answered my question: Has the savvy Carville/Begala/Lockhart team decided to run earlier with the next "bomb" now that this one is dying much quicker than they had hoped?

Jeffraham Prestonian

wasted: "Also, you never answered my question: Has the savvy Carville/Begala/Lockhart team decided to run earlier with the next "bomb" now that this one is dying much quicker than they had hoped?"

Uh, wasted, I think you've misunderstood my connection to Carville/Begala/Lockhart -- this would be the first post where *I* have typed those names.

Are you instead referring to what I've said I suspect the INTEL COMMUNITY has in wait?

Btw, I still have trouble understanding why you think al Qaqaa has been effectively neutralized as an issue. Maybe you can help me out.
.

wasted potential

Ron Reagan - Well, I already answered that one last night, but here is my dim-witted, Christian conservative opinion again: We had plenty of troops to win the war and the peace. We underestimated the insurgency that formed afterwards. I still believe that if we "take the gloves off" our fine men and women over there would wipe out the majority of this insurgency in a matter weeks, if not days. I will make one point - this enemy would still try to attack us over there if we had 10 million troops. No higher number of troops would defeat the ideology of hate, but a lot higher number troops could definitely turn Iraqi people against us and cause them to view much more as occupiers than they do now.

However, I do disagree with our political position which is to let the interim Iraqi government decide how much of our force we can use against the insurgency. The Iraqi government wants to win over these people to their fledgling new democracy. The political strategy could prove out to be the better one, but only time will tell.

wtfwjd?

In the Reality-Based Community the story looks a bit different:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/international/middleeast/28bomb.html?oref=login

" BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 27 - Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday.

Advertisement

The Iraqis described an orgy of theft so extensive that enterprising residents rented their trucks to looters. But some looting was clearly indiscriminate, with people grabbing anything they could find and later heaving unwanted items off the trucks.

Two witnesses were employees of Al Qaqaa - one a chemical engineer and the other a mechanic - and the third was a former employee, a chemist, who had come back to retrieve his records, determined to keep them out of American hands. The mechanic, Ahmed Saleh Mezher, said employees asked the Americans to protect the site but were told this was not the soldiers' responsibility.

...

But the accounts make clear that what set off much if not all of the looting was the arrival and swift departure of American troops, who did not secure the site after inducing the Iraqi forces to abandon it."


lk

Yesterday the front page of New York Times featured a flawed article asserting, "The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives -- used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons -- are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations. The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday."

CBS News' "60 Minutes" admitted today they were saving the same story to air the Sunday before the election.

John Kerry seized on the New York Times headline to launch a political attack on President Bush, saying U.S. troops "failed to guard those stockpiles" and that is "one of the great blunders" of the war.

Senator Kerry and the New York Times leave the impression that these weapons went missing recently and U.S. troops were derilict in their duty to guard the stockpile--neither of which is true.

Network and cable news programs repeated the incomplete report and Sen. Kerry's attacks more than 100 times on Monday.

But last night NBC "Nightly News" reported that on April 10, 2003, one day after Baghdad fell, U.S. troops entered Al Qaqaa, accompanied by an embedded reporter from NBC, and found no such weapons.

It also turns out that our troops have found and destroyed or are destroying 400,000 tons of weapons and explosives.

There was no mention of either one of these facts in today's New York Times front page story, which regurgitated yesterday's charges and Senator Kerry's attacks based on them.

wasted potential

Jeffraham:

I don't know how to post a link, so here are some stories about this disputing the NY Times stories. Frankly, some may not be a direct hit on the NY Times story, but their is enough to produce a "stalemate" meaning the Kerry people believe Kerry, the Bush people believe Bush and those in the middle don't believe anybody. However, I think that by tomorrow night, the NY Times will be on the ropes and it will then turn the people in the middle against them.

I am convinced that the loyal believers on both sides would believe anything bad about the other side, so they don't really matter in the equation.

Here goes:

(1)
UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL BRIEFING ^ | January 9, 2003 | MOHAMMED ELBARADEI

Other Dual Use Items


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.

(2) Brett Baer on FNC reports that the Pentagon is reviewing sattelite imagery which reveals considerable truck activity in the days leading up to the Iraq war. The DoD is considering releasing the photographs.

(3) N.Y. Times Flashback: Paper Reported Saddam Transferred High Explosives

The New York Times claimed this week that hundreds of tons of high explosives had been removed from the Al-Qaqaa weapons depot while the facility was under U.S. control.

But Times reporters knew way back in February 2003 that the removal process was instigated - not by looters or insurgents after the U.S. liberation, but instead by the government of Saddam Hussein.

On Feb. 15, 2003, the Times reported on an address to the United Nations Security Council by Mohamed ElBaradei, the U.N.'s chief nuclear watchdog. In quotes covered extensively by the paper, ElBaradei shared his concern about the removal of high explosives from facilities like Al Qaqaa:

"We have also continued to investigate the relocation and consumption of the high explosive HMX," ElBaradei explained a month before the U.S. invasion.

"As I reported earlier, Iraq has declared that 32 tons of the HMX, previously under I.A.E.A. seals, had been transferred for use in the production of industrial explosives, primarily to cement plants as a booster for explosives used in quarrying."

Baradei noted that Saddam's government had even confirmed the movement of the HMX, in quotes also picked up by the Times 21 months ago:

"Iraq has provided us with additional information, including documentation on the movement and use of this material, and inspections have been conducted at locations where the material is said to have been used.

"However, given the nature of the use of high explosives," ElBaradei said, "it may well be that the I.A.E.A. will be unable to reach a final conclusion on the end use of this material. While we have no indication that this material was used for any application other than that declared by Iraq, we have no technical method of verifying quantitatively the declared use of the material in explosions. . . . "

While the Times, CBS News and the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry continue to insist that the removal of HMX and other high explosives took place sometime after the liberation of Iraq began on March 19, 2003, they have yet to address ElBaradei's Security Council report clearly indicating those claims are not true.

Now, I can go on and on and on and on and on, but I don't want to bore you with articles you probably won't read anyway. The effect is this - the reports that the story is wrong will at least offset the original voices crowing the story and at most drown it out entirely and point the cross hairs back at the original sources.

Or do you disagree?

Gary

wtfwjd? posted this "BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 27 - Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday."

Would this "storming the weapons site have happened in between when the 3/23 inspected it & found nothing in terms of the IAEA seals on any of the huts & before the 101st Airborne got there or would it supposedly have happened after the 101st Airborne left & before the ISG got there in May???

The NYT is flaming out if they're running this crap. The Third Infantry Division (AKA 3ID) got there first & didn't find the IAEA seals where the 377 tons of EXPLOSIVES were stored. When the 101st Airborne got there, they did a cursory search but didn't do the extensive job that the 3ID did.

Here in the land of TRUTH, most people have figured out that the stuff wasn't there because it was moved before the war started.

Jim Rodgers

You know what, there's so much conflicting information as to where this stuff went & when it went there - it's pretty damn clear that nobody in this administration has ANY idea - they just keep throwing turds against the wall hoping one will finally stick - Now drudge is blaming the Russians - go ahead, tucker toss it up against the wall.

I have never in my lifetime seen an administration so lost, so clueless, so plain stupid.

How is thing even close at this point, indeed.

RocketPunch

Wasted - Stimulating consumers to spend??? In what reality? Consumer confidence is down again.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aVIEJVvBjKXk&refer=home

Also, the cost of living is up and the average household pay is down. Almost everyone I know has to work two jobs to pay the bills. I certainly haven't seen this tax cut you keep mentioning.

This is the bubble theory. People look at their own situation and think it is a reflection of the country. There are many problems in this country outside the bubble of those who have managed.

RocketPunch

Jim Rodgers - agreed. Everyone is trying to use the spin of the moment (it has changed several times) to pinpoint the timeframe for the lost explosives. But the true point is, the White House doesn't know either way. There is no getting around that. And this isn't about "HEY, LOOK, BUSH SUCKS" this is truly about a problem. If Kerry is elected and he makes mistakes like this as sure as hell won't be trying to defend him. I want the BEST out of whichever party is in office. But Bush is unacceptable.

Jeffraham Prestonian

Gary: "The Third Infantry Division (AKA 3ID) got there first & didn't find the IAEA seals where the 377 tons of EXPLOSIVES were stored."

Have you got a realistic source for that statement?
.

wtfwjd?

"Here in the land of TRUTH, most people have figured out that the stuff wasn't there because it was moved before the war started."

Yes! The Russians took them! To Syria! And it's not our fault! And there were wolves! And a big bear! And we didn't know the Russians took it then, but we know it now. Mmm-hmm. And we know where Bin Laden is too. See, the Russians took him out of Tora Bora in a special Russian spaceship that has a death ray and is invisible. And the Russians took him to Syria and Putin was there and he said here, we have your 380,000 pounds of expolosives, and a bear and some wolves, and we're going to endorse Bush for President in 2004 along with Iran and Bin Laden said I will endorse him too and he gave some falafel to the wolves and then the bear pulled off his bear mask and it was Jacques Chirac inside and...and...he said, hello my dear friend Osama, hello Vladmur, and Vladmur pulled off his mask and it was George Bush inside and he pulled a Magnum 357 out of his flight suit and he blew Osama away and then he made Chirac kiss his codpiece and beg him for freedom fries before letting him live and then he thanked the real Russians for the explosives and he put the wolves in his commercial and he took the explosives away in 380 tractor-trailers and he said on the CB, "Breaker 1 Breaker 1 we got a convoy good buddy" and he took them and he drove them to Jerusalem and he gave them to Ariel Sharon, and said, take these, these are Saddam's weapons and they will not threaten you anymore. But he didn't tell anyone about his big adventure except Barney on account of he's jes a modest ol Texas boy.

And that's what happened!

The comments to this entry are closed.