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

Comments

Phoenician in a time of Romans

Wasted Potential: "Due to my personal conviction that abortion is legalized murder of the innocent, my largest concern would be that Kerry has committed to using federal tax dollars on abortions again, not only here at home, but also overseas. It pains me to think that the money I earn would go to killing innocent life here and abroad."

Except, of course, for brown Iraqi babies. They don't count.

http://thewandererpress.com/a10-28-2004.htm

And under no circumstances look here. It's all fake, anyhow:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

Gary

"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?"

Yeah, Bret Baier of Fox News appeared on On the Record With Greta van Susteren tonight & he had that information AND the IAEA action report supplied to him by his Pentagon sources. The information from the IAEA's Jan, 2003 memo to the Pentagon is 130+ tons off from what the IAEA's memo from earlier this fall.

Tack on the Washington Times' headline story from Bill Gertz that Russian Spetznaz spirited the explosives into Syria before March, 2003 seems to validate things.

It's sad seeing CBS, the Kerry campaign & the NYTimes go up in flames. NOT!!!

Henry Schlatman

Does anybody want to tell me way the IAEA said the seals in AlQAQAA was intacted in March 2003 right before they left country?

Check out the Time Line for yourself:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/10/25/timeline_on_missing_explosives_in_iraq?mode=PF

Happy reading!

Tucker, do you want and try to spin this fact.

Gary

Henry Schlatman posted this "Does anybody want to tell me way the IAEA said the seals in AlQAQAA was intacted in March 2003 right before they left country?

Tucker, do you want and try to spin this fact."

I don't know if Tucker will give it a shot but I'd be glad to. Here's what's being reported:

"ABC News has this observation on the security provided by the "seals" the U.N. relied on at Al Qaqaa:

The IAEA documents from January 2003 found no discrepancy in the amount of the more dangerous HMX explosives thought to be stored at Al-Qaqaa, but they do raise another disturbing possibility.

The documents show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility.

ALTHOUGH THESE BUNKERS WERE STILL UNDER IAEA SEAL, THE INSPECTORS SAID THE SEALS MAY BE POTENTIALLY INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE THEY HAD VENTILATION SLATS ON THE SIDES. THESE SLATS COULD EASILY BE REMOVED TO REMOVE THE MATERIALS INSIDE THE BUNKERS WITHOUT BREAKING THE SEALS, THE INSPECTORS NOTED."

Call me stupid but that seems to be a pretty solid explanation & it doesn't need spinning, either.

Care to spin that??? I thought not.

idiot wind

how about this: videos of the site from after the fall of Bhagdad show that the explosives were still there.

Ventilation shafts or not.

Care to spin that?

Gary

What videos from after the fall of Baghdad showing that???

Additionally, a soldier from the Third Infantry Division involved in inspecting Al QaQaa appeared on Hannity & Colmes last night & said that their inspections found plenty of RPG's, hand grenades, munitions BUT DIDN'T FIND explosives.

Am I to conclude that we can't rely on what an eyewitness there at the compound saw??? What next???

Furthermore, there's a couple other points that need to be made.

1. The IAEA didn't just get this wrong in terms of how much explosives were there originally. They were off by 100+ tons.

2. The IAEA was notified by then-weapons inspector Charles Duelfer IN 1997 about the existance of these outlawed explosives. He said that they needed to be destroyed & the IAEA chose to not destroy them. Talk about incompetence.

3. Sen. Kerry is saying that these represent a grave danger to our troops & to terrorists. Let's assume that that's true for the sake of discussion. If that's true, then aren't these part of a cache of WMD's that Kerry says weren't there??? He can't have it both ways, though that's his pattern.

4. How can Kerry claim that the blame for this falls solely on Bush's shoulders & not on the military who inspected the compound??? It isn't intellectually coherent to say that President Bush failed to secure the compound while saying that the troops did their job.

To steal a phrase from Robin Williams as Mork from Ork "Reality. What a concept."

Jeffraham Prestonian

Gary: "3. Sen. Kerry is saying that these represent a grave danger to our troops & to terrorists. Let's assume that that's true for the sake of discussion. If that's true, then aren't these part of a cache of WMD's that Kerry says weren't there??? He can't have it both ways, though that's his pattern."

Uh, maybe for people too stupid to realize that not every dangerous object is a WMD.

"4. How can Kerry claim that the blame for this falls solely on Bush's shoulders & not on the military who inspected the compound??? It isn't intellectually coherent to say that President Bush failed to secure the compound while saying that the troops did their job."

His charge is clearly seen as one of INCOMPETENCE on the part of the war planners in not having enough troops to secure/destroy sites such as this, and of also having their priorities screwed up by rushing the troops who actually WERE at al Qaqaa into Baghdad in order to topple statues and guard the Oil Ministry building.
.

Gary

"His charge is clearly seen as one of INCOMPETENCE on the part of the war planners in not having enough troops to secure/destroy sites such as this, and of also having their priorities screwed up by rushing the troops who actually WERE at al Qaqaa into Baghdad in order to topple statues and guard the Oil Ministry building."

1. They had enough troops to inspect the place & to find out that the explosives weren't there & that the IAEA seals weren't there. How can you destroy what wasn't there???

2. How is it rushing the troops into Baghdad when the site had been inspected??? Wasn't toppling Saddam a high enough priority for you???

3. How can this supposed incompetence not include people like Gen. Tommy Franks & his team of commanders??? I'd seriously doubt that President Bush was calling the commander of the Third ID & telling them to check the munition storage locations that they located.

I'd seriously doubt that President Bush was calling the commander of the 101st Airborne & other units & telling them to check the munition storage locations that they came across.

4. If you'll recall, in the early going, the priorities & the plan were changing almost hourly. Priorities & assignments, accordingly, changed frequently & were handled by the in theater commanders, not at Bush's level. Bush was briefed but he certainly wasn't making tactical decisions, nor should he be.

Jeffraham Prestonian

Gary: "1. They had enough troops to inspect the place & to find out that the explosives weren't there & that the IAEA seals weren't there. How can you destroy what wasn't there???"

Gary, I think you've fallen a day behind the news cycle. See the KSTP videotape from embeds with the 101st Airborne on April 18, 2003 -- nine days after the fall of Baghdad, so certainly AFTER the war began.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20041028/ts_nm/iraq_explosives_abc_dc

"2. How is it rushing the troops into Baghdad when the site had been inspected??? Wasn't toppling Saddam a high enough priority for you???"

Not on April 18th, no. He sure wasn't in Baghdad then. And none of the troops from the 3ID or the 101st have said ANYTHING about conducting an inspection of the site. They looked around a bit, but were probably ordered elsewhere because this site -- which the IAEA warned of BEFORE the WAR BEGAN -- was not a high enough priority.

"How can this supposed incompetence not include people like Gen. Tommy Franks & his team of commanders???"

I'm sure it does, but it's hard to fault Franks when you KNOW his bosses were telling him they were GOING to do this war on the cheap, with less than 140K troops, mister, "and that's an order!" He saw what happened to Zinni, Shinseki, White...
.

Gary

Jeffie, old boy, you just don't get it. When the commander of the Third ID, Gen. Perkins I believe, says that they didn't see the IAEA tags & Ken Dixon of the 101st Airborne says that they drove through the entire compound & couldn't find the IAEA tags, I'll trust them over ABC, the home of disgraced political hack Mark Halperin ANYTIME.

Or would you rather trust a corrupted & disgraced organization like the IAEA with a political axe to grind over the U.S. military???

As for your insult of Tommie Franks, shame on you. By implication, aren't you saying that, even now as a private citizen, he's covering for President Bush???

If he thought that President Bush ddin't give him all that he asked for but he still followed orders, that might be believeable while he was still commanding the troops. That doesn't seem the case now, though, since he's heartily endorsed & is now campaigning for Bush on this matter. He's volunteered to endorse Bush. That ought to mean something.

Then again, liberal pinheads like you don't link & therefore, come up with some of the most boneheaded propaganda in the history of western civilization.

Jeffraham Prestonian

Gary: "Jeffie, old boy, you just don't get it. When the commander of the Third ID, Gen. Perkins I believe, says that they didn't see the IAEA tags & Ken Dixon of the 101st Airborne says that they drove through the entire compound & couldn't find the IAEA tags, I'll trust them over ABC, the home of disgraced political hack Mark Halperin ANYTIME."

And when you look at the KSTP video found here:

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=1

and

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

... who are you gonna believe? Surely not your lyin' eyes!
.

Pittsburgh Pride

I believe that W will be re-elected handily on Tuesday because of one issue:

ELECTABILITY

You see, The dems didn't choose Howard Dean because he was deemed unelectable. The problem is, Kerry has morphed into Howard Dean. Well at least since Labor Day.The swifties knocked the Kerry campaign into the abyss, so Kerry hired the Murder,Inc. crowd, and they immediately turned him into a fireball throwing lunatic. Just like them. The problem is, they have spent so much time inciting their base that that they miss that clear thinking dems and independents don't necessarily go for the Michael Moore wing of their party. It's obvious that their rhetoric connected with one person though. Usama. Did you see him spouting their talking points? I call it FearandHate 9/11. He was a cross between Chad(I'm sitting on four phone books) Clanton and Walter( I think I may have just soiled my diaper) Cronkite. Carville, Begala,et al have made Kerry competitive,but their red meat,everyone thinks like we do approach won't make him president.Electability...I like the sound of that.

The comments to this entry are closed.