« New Hampshire Morning | Main | Red Sox Nation for Bush »



Tucker - I am glad you are keeping this story alive. It is helping me to get those few on-the-fence people I know into the Kerry Camp.


On top of that!

Giuliani on the Today Show:

"The actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?"

You are going to have a hard time blaming Kerry for "denigrating our troops" when Bush's Keynote speaker is flat out blaiming the troops.

from the article

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.

Jefferhambulatory Pretonedeaf

Come on yous guys, Kerry and Edwards have always said that they were just raising the question about whether the materials had disappeared before the invasion. They did not actually accuse the President of losing the materials, you know.

It is silly wordplay to read the term "horrendous blunder" that Senator Kerry used to mean that the President actually made an error regarding the explosives. Instead, that term merely connotes a lack of information about what actually happened.

And we all know that it was indeed President Bush on the phone with the 3rd ID and the 101st telling them they had done an ample and adequate search.

come on now, this backlash thing is totally unfair!


come on you Kerry people. the military was scouring the countryside for WMD at the time to prove to the world that the UN was wrong. So you think they didn't look at a big ammo dump to see if there were restricted materials present????



Jefferhambulatory - The 101st were not there to inspect. They were just making a pitstop on the way to Baghdad. And I can't say enough - explosives there before or after, that isn't as much the point. The point is that the White House themselves are calling this a "mystery" and people like Rudy Guiliani are now blaiming the troops!!!


Bottom line - The White House didn't know anything about it. This is one of the, if not THE largest ammo depots in Iraq and it was completely off the mission statement of the President.


realist - I agree! Ridiculous!! Why wouldn't they see it. But the common sense of what SHOULD be done and the reality in the facts are two different things.

April 3 2003
The Army’s 3rd Infantry Division reaches Al-Qaqaa, fights with Iraqi forces, occupies the site and leaves after two days for Baghdad without searching for high explosives.

April 9 2003
The 3rd Infantry Division captures Baghdad.
April 10 2003

Troops from the 101st Airborne Division’s 2nd Brigade spend 24 hours at the site, search for chemical weapons — but not high explosives — and then head to Baghdad. An NBC reporter embedded with the unit said there’s no talk among the 101st of securing the area after they leave.


Oct. 23-24 2004
The Pentagon orders the U.S. military command in Baghdad to investigate the IAEA report.

That date above was the first time the Pentagon took action into the attempting to get information about the explosives.

Jeffrahamtons Prestoeastcoastrichguy


oooh oooh It's the big shift over to some other topic. obscure the original issue, because it was a big fraud.

ooooh. I don't know what Rudy said, but I guarantee you he was not taking aim at our troops like your big twit did.

ooooooooooh. you done.

frustrated pollster


This is no longer a winning issue for us. we need to move on to another topic, and quick. we should be talking about domestic policy issues, and in a positive way.

only 5 days left -- let's switch to something we can actually beat Bush on....


Jeffrahamtons - What?? Huh?? I didn't duck anything! We can argue all day long about whose source has the proper info. The best you can say is they took the explosives BEFORE we got there. But the point is, no matter how many ways you twist it THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT UNTIL NOW!! They are investigating NOW. The White House said it was a mystery. There are two choices. 1) The White House didn't know. 2) The White House of covering it up.

As for Guiliani - Bush has been screaming that Kerry's attack on the White House mistakes on this issue are "denigrating our troop". I find it ironic that while he is blaiming Kerry for blaiming the troops - Guiliani is BLAMING THE TROOPS. Explain that one to me. I can talk about both subjects at the same time without avoiding a thing, I promise you that.


frustrated pollster - I disagree. This is exactly what bothers me about Bush. Their preaching of strength and safety is an illusion.


Sen. Kerry is an idiot or grossly incompetent.

This is the only conclusion that you can come to after the latest accusation made by the Senator.

I wonder when he is going to admit that he "mislead" the american people?

Don't hold your breath!

Jeffraham Prestonian

jaybo -- And this link PROVES what a LIAR Kerry is!


Jeffrahamy Prestooge

RP: 1. Kerry accused the President of a horrific blunder for not stopping the terrorists from looting the ammo dump. The terrorists did not loot the ammo dump, and Kerry had no business making such a charge. In fact, it's a character issue now -- because Kerry is willing to say anything, whether he knows its true or not -- to try to score political points. And what he said here was an unwarranted attack on our troops and our President.

2. The Military has been looking for explosives all over iraq ever since april 2003. The fact they haven't found the hx or rdx is different than the accusation Kerry made. If you are now arguing that the military has been incompetent or ineffective in tracking down explosive caches, that's fine, but acknowledge at least that you have switched topics.

And by the way, would you have us march into Syria to find these weapons if Saddam sent them there before the war began?

Jeffraham Prestonian

Jeffrahamy: "And what he said here was an unwarranted attack on our troops and our President."

Since he said it better:

"The President seems to think Senator Kerry could not possibly be criticizing him since the President thinks he has never made a mistake. Let’s be perfectly clear: it is the President who dropped the ball. Senator Kerry is being critical of George Bush, not the troops. By embarking on the line of attack, George Bush is deflecting blame from him over to the military. This is beneath contempt."
-General Merrill McPeak, former chief of staff of the Air Force

Then, this morning, we have Rudy Giuliani BLAMING THE TROOPS for not conducting a thorough search!

WHO will say anything, blame anyone, to be elected...?!?


Prestooge -

1.) You say "it's a character issue now -- because Kerry is willing to say anything, whether he knows its true or not " So you blame Kerry for using current events in his political speeches? His message is the same. Bush is mismanaging the War and, as a result, the world is less safe. You act as if Kerry made up this story. If you are upset that Kerry is talking about this before 100% of the info is in then I have 4 words for you.


You have no merit to accuse Kerry of saying slinging BS after the American public was subjected to a barrage of propaganda and fear tactics for countless months by every member of this administration.

2.) Why would we need to track down weapons when we knew they were there? Or would you like to now argue that the IAEA never sealed the weapons and reported it to us? Why is it a year later that this administration is now getting around to looking at the situation?

You want to accuse me of switching topics even as I sit here and address the issue? What is the purpose of this question?

"And by the way, would you have us march into Syria to find these weapons if Saddam sent them there before the war began?"

How is that even remotely relevant to the situation? How does that answer the same question I have asked over and over and you have not answered. WHY DOES THE ADMINISTRATION NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO THESE EXPLOSIVES. You think it's fine that nobody really seems to know whether weapons where there or not before during the war? You don't care that the administration didn't think inspecting this massive depot of weapons was important? It certainly could not have been to them if they are just now officially investigating the location. You aren't bothered by the White House answer being "It is a mystery."

Please. I've read your posts. You have a head on your shoulders.

Jeffradoodle Prestonoodle


your response is more evidence that you all are running away from Kerry's initial accusation --

I don't blame you; it turns out that the accusation was irresponsible and shows a lack of Presidential temperment.

Don't know why you'd go back to WMD except to obscure the issue. Of course, the answer on WMD is that every reasonable analyst using the same intell reached the same conclusion, here and abroad. Kerry agreed at the time. But most revealingly, your flight back to WMD establishes that you now recognize that the original accusation (that this was a horrendous blunder) is just bunk.

I know you know that. That's why the Kerry surrogates are no longer pushing the accusation on TV, and why the Republicans are now using it as an aggressive attack line on Kerry. Let me be clear: this accusation has gone from a Kerry attack on Bush's wartime record on Monday, to a Bush attack on Kerry's character today. Even Tommy Franks has some very direct things to say about Kerry

On your General McPeak. He was active in the first Gulf War, but had no role in this one.


Prestonoodle - you keep accusing me of avoiding something and I honestly don't know what you are talking about. It is rather frustrating. I assume you mean I am backing away from the first thing Kerry said about the issue? Give me the qoute. I would me MORE then happy to comment.

WMD - I think my point was clear in the reference. But if you want to go deaper I am also more then happy to discuss WMD and flowers and sweets and all the things you don't seem to think could be considered a mistake.

Jeffraham Prestonian

Jeffradoodle -- You'd take the word of ex-military who never even MET John Kerry, let alone served with him in person, regarding what he did in Vietnam, but because McPeek was involved in a more successful Iraqi campaign under Dubya's daddy, he's not fit to comment on how badly the pooch has been screwed?


"For President Bush 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.

"The President approved the mission and the priorities. Civilian leaders tell military leaders what to do. The military follows those orders and gets the job done. This was a failure of civilian leadership, first in not telling the troops to secure explosives and other dangerous materials, and second for not providing sufficient troops and sufficient equipment for troops to do the job.

"President Bush sent our troops to war without sufficient body armor, without a sound plan and without sufficient forces to accomplish the mission. Our troops are performing a difficult mission with skill, bravery and determination. They deserve a commander in chief who supports them and understands that the buck stops in the Oval Office, not one who gets weak knees and shifts blame for his mistakes." --Wes Clark


JP, my smallish friend:

McPeak is certain competent to give his general opinion on military matters, but he is certainly not a fact witness as to the specific circumstances present in Iraq in April and May, 2003. By contrast, Tommy Franks is competent to give testimony on that latter issue, and, I submit, you ought to credit his statement regarding the facts on the ground, and his opinion drawn from those specific facts.

on the Vets: I think there are several dozen vets sho served with Kerry in vietnam and knew him there -- including ever single officer in his chain of command -- who say he is unfit to serve as POTUS. In addition, there are many former POWs who give compelling and emotional testimony about how Kerry's conduct had direct negative effects on the nature of their confinement.
Now, you may claim they are all liars and frauds if you want, but I'll bet you don't really believe that, and I'll bet you wouldn't do that to them in person.

Jeffraahmilton Prestofederalist


Yes, the language Kerry used -- "Bush committed a horrendous blunder." He's jumpting to a conclusion irresponsibly without facts or evidence. That's not presidential. Indeed, it now appears taht Kerry was peddling a lie without any care whether his statements were true or not.

That's the issue.


namestealer - Isn't that a bit hypocritical? You claim we call the Anti-Kerry vets liars? What about the Pro-Kerry people. What about the people who actually served on Kerry's Swiftboat? Do you claim they are liars? The bottom line - there are conflicting stories and there is an official military record. You can decide to believe what suits your opinion. I just read Kerry's record and put the issue to rest. There are more important issues at hand. We aren't sitting here trying to dig up Bush's arrest records. To most of the Kerry supporters Bush being "young and irresponsible" is not an issue.

tv watcher

oh, i see where the real jeff and rp get their arguments -- Kerry's speech was just played on tv.

What a fraud Kerry is. He had the same view at the same time as the President about WMD, and advised that we should invade. Boy oh boy, what a fraud. Most normal people don't like to contradict themselves. But this guy will -- again and again. my god, this guy is weird.

And of course he got a manicure.


Prestofederalist - give me the full quote. While I agree with that statement, I still think it serves an honest exchange more to take it in full context.

Wasted Potential

Citing an unbiased general like Wes Clark really makes me rethink this whole Iraq thing:)


tv watcher - It's sad when you still believe something even when Fox News admits they made it up.


Also, why don't you point out the contradictions in Kerry's speech today? I'd like to hear them.

The comments to this entry are closed.