Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Bert:

I purposely did not respond to yesterday’s breathless assertions from the left about how this little “October surprise” was being reported. Seemed to me better to wait for further information. And it seems better still for both sides to wait until an even more adequate amount of information is in.

Yet you have breathlessly jumped to a number of conclusions about the possibilities here, and most of them (this is a true shocker, folks) negative towards the Bush administration. You formed your opinions, then went rushing off to Google to confirm your opinions. How stale it is becoming to see the type of investigative skills you use to make your decisions, then backfill around them in support of them.

When I first heard this story yesterday, I made two assumptions: 1) IFFFF true, this is a horrific blunder by either the military, the planners or the administration, or 2) There is more to the story, since why would the admin NOT trumpet the finding of such sinister weaponry.

There is still much to play out from this story, which is why I suggest you wait for a fact—-any fact— before you jump to yet more conclusions.

Lest you be confused at the intent of my comments, the intent is NOT to quash any investigation nor to blindly assume the admin didnt screw up. The intent is to allow the information to be brought out BEFORE reaching a decision.

Bert, I can only imagine you on a jury, shouting to all your verdict of “GUILTY

Bert, I can only imagine you on a jury, shouting to all your verdict of “GUILTY, GUILTY” moments BEFORE the opening arguments.

The above post somehow deleted the last part of the sentence.

In other posts the dems are talking about how bloggers came up with info about how the weapons were missing before the invasion and talking about how the White House didn’t already know this and jump right on it as soon as the story broke.
Like it is the only thing they have to think about and they should have been ready to dispute the story.
I don’t hear anything negative about Kerry jumping right on the story and using it against Bush before they had all the details.
Last night a Kerry rep was saying 687 tons, when the story was 387 tons. I’ve heard them called WMD’s by Kerry people. They are saying Bush didn’t protect the WMD sights.
I thought the big problem was that Bush went in and Saddam had NO WMD’s.
Which is it?
Are these just the wrong type? They don’t count as the ones for the invasion?
There have already been 400,000 tons of explosives and weapons destroyed. There were estimates of up to 1 million tons that Saddam may have had.
I thought Saddam was not supposed to have this arsenal?
Don’t forget the part about how the inspectors said the weapons were missing a month before the war.
Maybe they are more of Bush’s puppets?

I thought the big problem was that Bush went in and Saddam had NO WMD’s.

[…] I thought Saddam was not supposed to have this arsenal?

From the CNN article, wmds:

Prior to the Iraq war, the high-grade explosives at Al Qaqaa had been under the control of IAEA inspectors because the material could be used as a component in a nuclear weapon, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said. (my emphasis)

the very simplistic, black and white spin now flooding the Conservative echo chambers claims this is proof that all ‘380 tons of explosives were already missing’, when Coalition troops arrived on the scene on April 10.

Why is it better that the explosives went missing 18 months ago than recently? The point of the invasion was to prevent WMD from reaching terrorists who might be in league with Iraq - if we couldn’t do that for weapons be knew about, then how could we do it for the WMD that we couldn’t find in inspections?

Joe, and WMD (BTW, how do you pronounce this? should we say “W Mud”?)

2) There is more to the story, since why would the admin NOT trumpet the finding of such sinister weaponry.

Because the UN inspectors already knew about it, and were monitoring what it was being used for. This was considered “dual use” - there are legit reasons for using explosives, even stuff like this, apparently.

WMD:

Don’t forget the part about how the inspectors said the weapons were missing a month before the war.

I haven’t read anything about it being missing before the war - gotta link?

Joe:

1) IFFFF true, this is a horrific blunder by either the military, the planners or the administration,

Ah, right. So many places for the buck to stop before it gets up to Mr. Mission Accomplished.

William:

1) IFFFF true, this is a horrific blunder by either the military, the planners or the administration, Ah, right. So many places for the buck to stop before it gets up to Mr. Mission Accomplished.

I just knew that someone of your ilk would question that statement. Once again, you are salivating at the opportunity to blame President Bush. What a shocking development that is!!

You’ll note, should you choose to use your cognitive skills, that I included the chain of command up to the President in my equation. And I did so with purpose. If the story is true, the buck stops at the highest level even if other members of the group are at fault, which is why I included the President. But we don’t know that the story is even true….there are already disclaimers evident in the first NYT story, and being followed up by NBC.

The question for you is why you are so willing to blindly believe ANY negative information about the administration, while blindly denying any negative information about Kerry? Could it be rabid partisanship—-gee, ya think?????

You’ll note, of course, that I am voting for Bush, yet even so, I see the possibility of Bush being at fault for this. You see, I haven’t lost the objectivism that comes from using my brain to look at circumstances. Unfortunately, you HAVE lost any objectivity, so you are unable to accept that I even included the President in the possibility of blame…..NO, for you, only total blame for Bush, even with the changing information blowing around you, is good enough. What a simpleton way of looking at things.

I have to breathlessly say that I am amazed. Did the explosives disappear before the invasion? Okay, let’s think about this: Whether it’s 387 tons or 650 tons or even 100 tons, that is a hell of a lot of ANYTHING. It would take quite a few men, forklifts, and trucks to move it. It’s not a truck, it’s a convoy — exactly what our intelligence gatherers would have been looking for to confirm the presence of WMD.

Hence, if it was moved prior to the invasion — failure of intelligence.

Was it stolen after the invasion, a convoy full of explosives that drove out right under our troops’ noses?

Okay, we’ll chalk that possibility down to military failure.

Either way, failure. Bush’s failure? Of course no man can be blamed for things he wasn’t physically present for and has no direct control over — right? WRONG. He is the president, he is the commander in chief, the buck stops at his desk whether he wants it to or not.

It’s time to stop excusing George W. Bush and take him to task for the responsibility he assured us he was capable of assuming.

i think it is funny that the big exclusive story from the n y times about the weaponds backfired.tht weaponds were gone before our troops got there. the UN is so corupt, and the cant even guard or find wmd. well, they were there.
but, kerry had to jump on the band wagon and critize PRESIDENT BUSH, that the cache of weaponds were lost , the way the times put it, like just lately, and this was just found out.

NBCNEWS: CACHE OF EXPLOSIVES VANISHED FROM SITE IN IRAQ BEFORE TROOPS ARRIVED… as posted on drudge last night.

this is an old story the times spun for kerry.
AND IT BACKFIRED.
now kerry has egg on his face.

I think everyone is missing the point of Bert’s thoughful analysis:

But, according to this timeline of the invasion, on April 2 U.S. forces had already reached the outskirts of Baghdad and the next day April 3, had secured control of Saddam International Airport – both approached from the south. Does this mean, that for at least 8 days the Al Qaaqaa site was not secured, given the likelihood it was now an area controlled by Coalition forces?

Report: Explosives already gone when U.S. troops arrived
NBC News says its crew was embedded with soldiers at time

this says it all, nbc had reporters inbedded.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.explosives/index.html

cnn, nbc, drudge all saying it was a spun story.

so there were wmd.

so there were wmd.

Huh? What?

Using this as evidence of WMD is like using a piece of steel as evidence of WMD because it can be used to make a nuke casing. Sure, it could be used in WMD - it could also be used for a number of other more benign (or not-so-benign) purposes.

You wouldn’t need 380 tons of explosives to trigger nukes.

You guys are all missing the point: Either way it’s a horrific blunder, as far as I’m concerned. No matter how you slice it, hundreds of thousands of pounds of extremely high-powered explosives are in the hands of shadowy enemies fighting our troops in Iraq and probably in the hands of others seeking to cause bloodshed around the world.

If we failed to secure the site during or since the initial invasion, shame on us for a poor military strategy that underestimated the enemy threat.

If Saddam actually distributed the explosives before the invasion to future insurgents as part of cunning preparations for an ongoing post-invasion insurgency, well, again, shame on us for a poor military strategy that underestimated the enemy threat.

Either way, the Administration made a big stupid mistake.

-Cf

The real story about this after listening to Kerry pound it all day long yesterday is that he and the New York Times made it sound as if these explosives went missing yesterday. This is just another example of the NYTimes working as Kerry campaign propaganda office. Perhaps their services should be accounted for as campaign contributions under Mcain Feingold?

It does seem a little ironic as well that you guys are breathlessly panting about these extremely dangerous weapons of mass destruction, which apparently do exist, but only because it might help get Bush out of office 8 days from the election. I dare say without that reason, the danger and thus the ‘collossal blunder’ charge would be denied. After all there were no WMD?

Another thing you might consider is that Saddam’s forces, i.e. the Baathist Fedeyeen who knew where they were and what they were, moved them.

It does seem a little ironic as well that you guys are breathlessly panting about these extremely dangerous weapons of mass destruction, which apparently do exist, but only because it might help get Bush out of office 8 days from the election. I dare say without that reason, the danger and thus the ‘collossal blunder’ charge would be denied. After all there were no WMD?

It seems a little obtuse for you guys to constantly ignore the fact that these materials were under UN supervision.

There’s a lot of outrage here. For the people on the right who are outraged (I’ll call you rwao’s), here’s two quotes from the NBC article.

It remains unclear, however, how extensively the U.S. forces searched the site in the immediate aftermath of the invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.

At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

I didn’t include any quotes from the corrupt UN because they probably stole it anyway. Luckily for us, the administration doesn’t think it’s a big deal.

A senior administration official played down the importance of the missing explosives, describing them as dangerous material but “stuff you can buy anywhere.” (from the CNN article)

Also, the only ones on this thread who mentioned wmd’s are the rwao’s. I’m interested to see where Kerry’s people referred to them a wmd’s, as this would be a big political blunder. Can you please post a link?

Really, I think it should be a given that if you are going to make claims, you need to either state a source or post a link. I think it’s true for both sides, but if you are a red posting on the blue side, or vice versa, I think that you’ve got to do it because there will be so much resistance to your ideas. Unless you are a troll and that is your objective.

Dan

Question: Were these explosives prohibited under the sanctions?

For the record: WMD’s are biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. Not conventional explosives.

Alejo,

From the CNN article:

Prior to the Iraq war, the high-grade explosives at Al Qaqaa had been under the control of IAEA inspectors because the material could be used as a component in a nuclear weapon […]

So it’s not that this material was WMD but that it could be used as a component of such.

Saddam was really a nice guy, with no weaponds, that just wanted to live peacefully in his rathole, under the close watch of the UN?

Ok…makes sense to me…like lugnuts on a birthday cake.

Ahh, they’re just conventional explosives again.

JB —

Right. I was trying to clarify for some folks who were trying to say this was proof Saddam had WMD’s.

I was asking about sanctions because if the explosives actually were prohibited it both hurts and helps the Bush campaign. If they weren’t prohibited under the sanctions it’s all negative for Bush.

Beagle—

Whatever.

For the record, Al Qaqaa is just the tip of the iceberg. All you have to do is watch “Off to War” and see the members of the National Guard complaining about an unguarded munitions dumps located near their camp. I’ve read several soldiers blogs that have talked about unguarded munitions dumps. Remember when that roadside bomb went off and everybody got all excited because it has some old chemical weapon stuff in it? Then they said that it was obviously old and probably came from one of the unguarded munitions dumps. Ring a bell anyone?

I actually wrote to Condeleeza Rice five months ago, demanding an answer to why these munitions dumps weren’t being guarded. This has been a LONG STANDING issue. Maybe Al Qaqaa was looked into, maybe it wasn’t. But I know for a fact, straight from the horses mouths, from soldiers stationed over there, that there have been munitions dumps just sitting out there, unguarded.

Julia

Eric, are you perhaps reading some other thread and posting in this one? The only one here to mention these materials as WMD was (aptly) wmds.

Alejo, sorry to step on your point.

Anybody read the article on the BBC website?
Even Bush’s best buddy Allawi is started to speak out. Its about time…
“Iraqi’s interim prime minister has accused US-led multinational forces of negligence over the massacre of 49 army recruits on a remote road on Saturday.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3955673.stm

Eric —

Ahh, they’re just conventional explosives again.

You’re making me dizzy. Was someone on the Blue Team trying to make them out as WMD’s? I don’t think so. Interesting that if they’re not WMD’s they’re of absolutely no importance to the Red Team — even if they stole enough explosives to bring down every high rise building in America.

Julia
Your absolutely right about that. Enemy munitions dumps deserve top security precautions.

“chemical weapon stuff in it?”
Couldn’t be. These are WMD’s and there aren’t any in Iraq.

“But I know for a fact, straight from the horses mouths, from soldiers stationed over there, that there have been munitions dumps just sitting out there, unguarded.”
Then you also know for a fact, that things are getting better over there, contrary to what the media and the left are saying. Right?

Just so everyone gets the facts:

The explosives that were looted from the Al Qaqaa nuclear facility, apparently in April and May of 2003, had been sealed and monitored by international nuclear inspectors before the invasion. The explosives were monitored because they can be used to detonate a nuclear bomb, although Iraq was allowed to keep them because they also have civilian and conventional military uses. [Boston Globe]

So immediately before the war, during the time when Iraq had once again agreed to UN inspections, we knew exactly where this stuff was. Now we don’t.

Why didn’t we secure the site?

State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said that securing the site had been ”a priority” but that ”given the number of arms and the number of caches and the extent of militarization of Iraq, it was impossible to provide 100 percent security for 100 percent of the sites, quite frankly.”

So, we didn’t have enough troops to secure this site - we needed them for higher priority sites. Where should this site have been on the list?

”This is not just any old warehouse in Iraq that happened to have explosives in it; this was a leading location for developing nuclear weapons before the first Gulf War,” said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a nonprofit organization that has followed Iraq’s attempts to procure weapons of mass destruction for more than a decade. ”The fact that it had been left unsecured is very, very discouraging. It would be like invading the US in to order to get rid of [weapons of mass destruction] and not securing Los Alamos or [Lawrence] Livermore [National Laboratory].

Were there other incidents like this?

”The military did not view guarding these sites as their responsibility,” Kay said, recalling that he witnessed US troops guarding the gates of the Tuwaitha nuclear facility while Iraq civilians carried away radioactive pipes and metal drums through other exits. [This is David Kay, who headed the first team to look for WMD].

”There just were not enough troops to guard the number of sites. It was just crazy.”

At the time, there was no major insurgency and US military officials felt the war had been won, Kay said, so the Department of Defense did not fear that the weapons that disappeared in widespread looting would be used against US soldiers.

And it gets better. In another recent story “The senior adviser to Iraq’s Interior Ministry blamed U.S. forces Tuesday for not securing facilities where the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency says equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons has vanished.” This is the same story, except with stuff to make nukes except to trigger them - before the war, the UN knew where it was. Now we don’t.

And, if you read the stories, both of these sites had been monitored since the end of the Gulf I war. The UN had been keeping tabs on this “dual use” material, successfully, for more than a decade.

And this war was all to make us safer? How does it keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists if we invade Iraq but don’t secure their weapons? It looks more and more like invading Iraq was not just wasteful - of lives money and our ability to strike elsewhere - but actually harmful.

But as Cheney put it, for Bush, “delay, defer was not an option”. And out go the UN inspectors, and off we go to war, and Baghdad falls, Saddam’s statue comes down, “Mission Accomplished”.

Like I said in an earlier post - thank God there were no true WMD. Who knows where they’d be now.

It sure sounded to me yesterday as if Kerry and Edwards were making these out to be as dangerous as WMD. Even though it’s apparent that these materials were gone before US military got there.

Mr. Edwards said less than one pound of the material was used to take down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, and larger amounts were apparently used in the bombing of a housing complex in November, 2003, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the blasts in a Moscow apartment complex in September, 1999, that killed nearly 300 people.

The explosives could also be used to trigger a nuclear weapon, which was why international nuclear inspectors had kept a watch on the material, and even sealed and locked some of it. The other components of an atom bomb - the design and the radioactive fuel - are more difficult to obtain. toledoblade.com

Eric —

Several hundred tons of high explosives are definitely dangerous. What is your argument? That if Kerry says they’re dangerous it justifies the WMD argument?

I find it amazing and sickening that upon the discovery that terrorists who want to kill our men and women over there in Iraq have this huge and dangerous stockpole of weapons, the first thing most think of is WHO WILL BENEFIT IN THE ELECTION!!? Will this hurt Bush! Will it backfire on Kerry! Will this mean Nader will now get 2% of the vote?!!

I dont know about you guys, but what really crossed my mind when i heared about this was “how do we secure these weapons”, not playing along in the drudge v. NYT partisan game blame game. Looks like i am in the minority here.

Misha, to many of us on the left (I imagine), the idea of securing these materials entails replacing Bush, therefore, highlighting his failure in this is addressing our concern for securing this material.

I think it’s safe to to say we’re all concerned about where this stuff ends up. I mean, it seems mightly unlikely that someone stole it to use for construction purposes. But the reason we’re talking about how it will affect the election is because this is an election blog.

I dont know about you guys, but what really crossed my mind when i heared about this was “how do we secure these weapons”, not playing along in the drudge v. NYT partisan game blame game. Looks like i am in the minority here.

Well, call me crazy, but I don’t want to secure these weapons. Not personally, I mean. I don’t want to come anywhere near them. But if you’re gonna go out and secure them, Misha, go right on ahead, I admire you for doing it. I hear there’s good money doing that sort of stuff now for private contractors in Iraq.

And call me crazy, but when there’s a mistake I think someone needs to recognize it happened, find out who screwed up, and fix it. Not a common view on Planet Red, I know, it’s just the way I think.

William- I dont know that your comments make any sense in the least, but maybe its because I did not make my point clear. My point is… that I think it is a shame that people are actively TRYING to spin this into an electoral advantage for their guy, especially since none of us really know what happen.

I think it speaks to the perverse priorities that many people have- in which the defeate or re-election of Bush is at the forfront of every single event that happens- especially when, in my opinion, our first impulse should be on protecting our men and women over in iraq rather than trying to score political hay off of this unfortunate situation. ESPECIALLY, since most of you are just assuming that Bush is either to blame or not to blame- basically based on whether you want to see him win or not.

Alejo- I do see your point, and its a good one. I guess I am just frustrated with how every single event has to become the battleground for partisan bickering and finger-pointing.

Joseph- as much as you dislike Bush, you cant possibly think that if Kerry wins we suddenly have a better chance of securing these weapons, can you??! Thats up there with people who think if Kerry wins, we will suddenly be attacked by terrorists because we will no longer have the stones to protect ourselves. Its just another partisan myth.

eric wrote:
> Ahh, they’re just conventional explosives again.

They always were. I think you’re the only one who ever suggested otherwise.

codco wrote:
> Even Bush’s best buddy Allawi is
> started to speak out.

I read that, too. He’s blaming America! I guess the White House didn’t write that speech for him, huh?

The more I hear about Iraqi’s various political leaders, the more hopeless I get about the whole thing and the more . I really don’t have much confidence that when Iraq reaches independence, even if it becomes a real democracy, that they will be especially friendly towards the United States. Nor, for that matter, can I imagine how exactly we will undo the damage done by giving almost eight hundred thousand pounds of high explosives to any terrorist group who wanted any. I just can’t see much of an upside to the invasion at all. I still don’t see any evidence that the next democratic leadership in Iraq - or the chaotic “terrorist playground” alternative - won’t be as bad or worse than Saddam. Allawi is supposed to be the most progressive leader in Iraq? Even Allawi was a Baathist hit man once upon a time.

-Cf

kctim,

I looked up the article on the chemical munition, it was an old 1991 sarin munition (as the article states, most likely scavenged from one of the many munitions dumps in Iraq):

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2004/emay/18_updates.html

Here is an article from May of 2003, stating that British troops stationed in Basra are not guarding any of the munition dumps, because they don’t have enough people:

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/05/iraq050603.htm

Here’s an article from Sept 30, 2003.

http://www.iht.com/articles/111856.html

Quote “The scope of the problem is much larger than the Pentagon acknowledged three weeks ago, when senior military officials insisted that all known munitions sites in Iraq had been secured.

Again, that quote is from September of last year.

Julia

Joseph- as much as you dislike Bush, you cant possibly think that if Kerry wins we suddenly have a better chance of securing these weapons, can you??!

The point is I have no confidence in Bush. I started this election season as an Anybody But Bush type but I have come to appreciate what Kerry could bring to the office. Do I expect miracles from him? No. But for me it’s a matter of odds. I might think Kerry has a 12% chance of securing that material, but that’s twelve times the odds I’d give Bush.

You do realize thats it going to probably be the same generals on the ground, and Kerry will probably (wisely) defer to their judgement in their pursuit of these explosives? Like I said, its like the people who think the CIA and FBI will suddenly stop doing their job of stopping terrorist attacks once Kerry takes office.

Misha,

Precisely. Kerry will wisely defer to the commanders on the ground as opposed to Bush who defers to Rumsfeld and Cheney, who only listen to commanders when it suits them (as exemplified by their handling of Fallujah among other items).

Julia

The bottom line is this:

The Iraqi invasion/war was poorly planned. period.
The lack of troops on the ground was poor planning.
The fact that there was NO PLAN to guard Iraq’s biggest weapons cache. Thats poor planning.
Who’s war is it. GWB’s. WHo should of had a plan.
GWB.
Do things always go the right way in war. NO.
Should every precaution have been taken. YES.
Was every precaution taken. NO.

If John Kerry was president and all this happened you bet your ass Republicans would be pointing fingers like crazy. But because its Bush they direct the blame elsewhere. “Its was the Iraqi interim government’s responsibility…. im mean the U.N…..errrr…i mean…..its no bodies…..errr…ahhh…they were already gone…..errrr…..How the hell did i become president again???………oh yeah, my daddy……”

Aside from what Julia said, Misha, we aren’t the only nation involved or invested. It might take some of that law enforcement mentality combined with diplomacy and competence. Competence alone contributes 9% to that 12% number I mentioned earlier.

Misha wrote:

“people are actively TRYING to spin this into an electoral advantage for their guy,”

Misha, I really don’t believe this can be made into an advantage for Kerry, though it can clearly be viewed as a disadvantage for Bush before the election.
It seems pretty obvious that these weapons disappeared due to the fact that there were not enough US or coalition soldiers to secure those stockpiles of explosives that were there when we arrived, but aren’t there now.
This administration did not listen to their own generals about the numbers needed to win the Iraq war, and it seems we will only continue to pay the price for their shortsighted belief that it was going to be an easy victory.
I agree that our first impulse should be on wanting to protect our soldiers, but you’ve got to try to understand that many of us believe that the best way to accomplish that is for Kerry to take over and do a better job there than the present administration has managed to do. In fact, at this point I honestly believe that it wouldn’t be all that hard for _anyone_, left, right or center, to wage war more effectively than this administration has!

Hear hear, Adrienne!!

I hear what you guys/gals are saying- and yet, you are saying it with the same surity that those on the right are saying that Kerry would undermine us in our resolve to fend off terrorists. There is, doubtless, nothing I can say to change mind of people who actually think these two men are so extremely different in their compontence and resolve. I only hope this kind of partisanship will be lessened with a clear-cut winner next tuesday. somehow, i doubt it.

> I dont know about you guys, but what really
> crossed my mind when i heared about this
> was “how do we secure these weapons”,

Misha, sadly it’s too late for that. It’s not too late, however, to change the leader who made the decisions that put those weapons into the hands of tens of thousands of our enemies.

We who want Kerry to win aren’t doing it because we’re like rabid sports fans rooting for our team at all costs. When we hear bad news from Iraq, we’re torn up. We feel terrible. And we feel even more urgency to get rid of the people whose continuous string of bad decisions got us into the mess in the first place. You see our finger-pointing as empty partisanship, but we see it as a desperate and sincere attempt to save our country from further suffering.

-Cf

CF- from reading your posts for the last couple of months, you have certainly gained my respect where I would not lump you in with these people. I do, however, believe a large portion of people in this election have become so bitterly partisan that they are willing to exploit ANYTHING to get their guy elected (they have already started exploiting Justice Rehnquist’s cancer for goodness sakes!). This applies to people on both sides of the election, and I will not give them the same respect I give you- because they do not deserve it.

I am so jaded right now about the lengths to which people will go to win this election- and I fear very much what will happen if its close. To people on both sides: the ENDS NEVER JUSTICE THE MEANS. Please keep that in mind- there will always be another election- but your integrity is something you cannot get back.

ooops.. i mean “Justify”. See how worked up I am :)

> ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS

Absolutely.

-Cf

I think Talking Points Memo has pretty much put a stake in the heart of Bush’s claims that we invaded too late to stop looting.

Oh, that, and Brit Hume saying he saw the materials still under seal at that time. Oh, well.

I only hope this kind of partisanship will be lessened with a clear-cut winner next tuesday.

I agree completely, but there will still be the business of running the country after the election. The issues will be very divisive still. I think as long as we can stop focusing on individuals, i.e. the candidates, and get back to arguing the issues, things will get back to a modicum of normality. Which is not to say it will be a smooth ride, but hey, what did Rummy say, “Democracy is messy.”

I’m with you on this Misha, way too much spinning going on here, I’m getting dizzy.

Misha:
“I do, however, believe a large portion of people in this election have become so bitterly partisan that they are willing to exploit ANYTHING to get their guy elected.

Why whenever this administration screws up and those of us on the left accordingly discuss it is this viewed as being exploitative and “bitterly” partisan to do so?
Lets get real here, shall we? Before this administration came in, we had to watch as they tried to impeach Clinton (over a freakin’ blow job) and to this day the right tries to blame practically everything that has happened in the past four years on _him_!
It seems to me that people on the left (including myself) were and are entirely capable of being disgusted with Clinton’s inability to keep his sexual urges under control and to voice disagreement and disappointment with some of his policies while in office.
It is perhaps for this reason that I find it extremely disingenuous that so few people here are willing to do the same - to actually admit that Dubya and Co. have made some serious mistakes and bad decisions! Mistakes of such bloody seriousness and decisions so very rotten that they’d rather not give him four more years in which to screw things up even further.

Indeed, I have to admit that my own partisan feelings over the past four years have been exponentially increased by the general inability of those on the right to admit that Dubya is not even close to being half the man, or half the president his father was.

“This applies to people on both sides of the election, and I will not give them the same respect I give you- because they do not deserve it.”

I am fully able to give respect to Republicans when I feel they are being honest and at least partially critical in their thinking. But when they apologize or make excuses for everything Dubya and Co. has done, I admit its pretty hard to be respectful.

“I am so jaded right now about the lengths to which people will go to win this election- and I fear very much what will happen if its close.”

I share your concern about this.

“there will always be another election-”

Maybe so, maybe not. But its long past time to treat the threat of terrorism seriously, rather than as a political tool. And that is going to take a lot of shrewd intelligence and diplomacy here and around the world - much more than we’re getting now.

“but your integrity is something you cannot get back.”

Nor are human lives or limbs - or hearts and minds, whether they are of American or Iraqi extraction. But our reputation and standing in world is something we can get back - though not with an inept and diplomatically challenged leader at the helm.
Maybe you think we Democratic voters are only being “bitterly” partisan, but our wanting to change horses and courses now has less to do with the race, and more to do with how our country will finish.

Simple questions. What evidence do we have that the UN inspectors are telling us the truth? What evidence have they provided that the seals were intact as late as March 2003? How do we know the seals are tamper proof? Are UN officals above bribery? If the military could screw up, can and did the UN screw up? I am sure more questions than answers will surface in the next few days.

Segaza,

What you just suggested is a good example of the knee jerk reaction most Bush apologists have when confronted with adverse news. When Pat Robertson related what Bush said about no causalities in Iraq, Karl Rove, Karen Hughes and other surrogates slammed him as a liar and a nut job! And, this is a guy who raised millions for BC04.

Some say, that the IAEA going public with this story was in part to do damage to Bush’s re-election chances. I suggest this move stems from real anger, as they saw their real fears of dangerous materials falling into the hands of terrorists, come true.

However, if you’re waiting for evidence of malfeasance and incompetence to surface about the IAEA, it will be a long wait. In researching this entry I went to their impressive website:

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Thanks Joseph, for singularly taking away some substance from my entry, as it appears many here ignored it, rather focused on a personal agenda. I may not have the resources of a NYTimes, but I feel the questions I raised are fairly substantial, and have yet to be refuted in this Comment Thread.

Misha:
“I do, however, believe a large portion of people in this election have become so bitterly partisan that they are willing to exploit ANYTHING to get their guy elected.

Although, I think Adrienne made an effective response to Misha’s statement, I must add my two cents.

Yes, there are those out there who do precisely what Misha is suggesting. However, as much as I vehemently argue and oppose the opinions expressed here (especially from those of the Red Column), for the most part, I feel WatchBlog is devoid of such simple-minded intentions.

There have been many good points made here, however I think that there are some questions that I would like answered for myself, from whomever our next leader may be (may God have mercy upon him):

1) Will we be willing to commit a stronger force in Iraq as so many of our generals are claiming is necessary?

2) What precise conditions will be met when our troops can come home and we can say “Mission Accomplished?”

3) What will be done to assist the families of those who are serving overseas? Will the government give them assistance, or will they have to fend for themselves on the generosity of others (which seems to be diminished in this country when people get in fist fights over parking spots)?

4) What specific measures will be taken so that future occurances like this do not happen?

5) Are we willing to believe that conventional explosives are not as effective in the murder of human beings as are WMD’S?

6) How do we plan to involve Iraq in the Israeli Peace Process? Will we have to deal with a
heightened threat from the PLO in America?

7) What do we plan to do about reports indicating that terrorists have begun recruiting operations in Central America, and how much more funding will the Border Patrol require to secure our borders?

8) Do we remove ourselves from NATO, or do we reorganize it so that it becomes a more effective body?

9) What budget deficits can we expect to see if the mounting toll of the war continues to affect our economy over 5-10 years?

10) What is the truth behind the allegations that the United States is building permanent bases in Iraq? Do we intend to keep a nominal military presence there indefinitely?

11) Is the UN outdated and ineffective, and do we need to dissolve it and form a new and more effective body of global discussion?

12) Will we insist upon a doctrine of fear to “bring the local systems in line” or will we work to affect the subtlies which are the underlying causes of terrorism: ignorance, lack of education, corrupt theocratic systems, and past accusations of Western abuse (such as we are accused of in Iran), but most importantly a lack of hope. The lack of hope has a lot to do with this, so maybe we need to think about what we haven’t been doing that gives hope, not despair.

Ok, enough preaching. These are all questions I’m trying to answer, and I encourage you all to do the same.

Peace, out.

Emmarus,

Those are all insightful and poignant questions, that the typical concerned and informed citizen should demand and deserves answers to.

But, they should ring familiar to those who read them here, because they are the same questions that have been asked repeatedly of this administration. Instead, we were told not to question their judgment - ‘we know what we’re doing’, came the answer.

Yet, they are also many of the same problems and crisis faced by the Clinton administration. And, it just struck me. If it was more than four years ago, I could very well answer your questions.

Bert, I definitely commend you on taking the time to check into the minutia of this situation. And you do have a substantial point.

As to deflecting the argument toward suspected partisan motives, this is consistent with the standard procedure for eliminating valuable discourse. As many on the right have been pointing out, there are disturbing similarities between this and Rather’s debacle. Though Rather’s story was far less substantial, the point of focusing on him was to eliminate discussion of the issue he presented. In this case, the right would rather attempt to discredit the NYTimes as partisan rather than discuss the issue at hand.

But this matter is so much more important that they have to address it in some way, so they resort to the next best standard procedure: afix blame elsewhere. Every day, Bush reiterates his true campaign slogan, “I didn’t fail, everyone around me did.”

Even worse, Cheney’s rebuttal is (in effect) “Kerry would have personally given the munitions back to Saddam wrapped in a bow.” So we have a president who believes he is chosen by Yawey and who can divine people’s “true selves” by looking in their eyes, and now we have a vice-president who can peer into alternate realities and report on what Kerry had done there. Fantasy world of spin, indeed.

The funny part is this whole, “NYC times shouldnt have reported this story until all the facts are uncovered”

Seeing as all this happened over a year ago. How bloody long does the press have to wait until until the can talk about it? forever? If a murder is commited in someone’s neighbourhood, are we not aloud to report it until the murderer is captured??? thats crazy.
Hey reporters! No more talking about anything related to the election, since the election hasnt taken place yet. It is the job of the press to question and demand answers.
The question is “Where the hell are these explosives?”

It sounds to me like Bush supporters dont want any bad news before the election whether its legit or not. If the missing weapons of minor destructive arent The U.S.’s fault then prove it.
But they cant.
Their arguement: It MIGHT not have been our fault.
WELL, ITS SOMEBODIES BLOODY FAULT!!!!!

Codco, come on.

They story broke in the spring of 2003. No one thought it was much of a story then based on what they found out. It was ignored by most media for months because there was little, if any, story there.

Now, the NYT and CBS get a ‘tip’ from a ‘source’ that this story exists, they don’t check it well enough to know that this was all looked at a year ago, CBS admits that they planned to run the story the day before the election for the precise reason of it potentially being damaging to Bush, provided they don’t have time to counter it. The NYT jumped a little early, and with hours the Kerry camp has an ad playing and it is inserted into his speeches?

Are you not at all concerned about media integrity? Does this not just smell to high heaven? If this had been on the other camp, if Fox News and the Washington Post breaks a story tomorrow concerning information about Iraq/Al Qaeda that we found out about 2 years ago but hasn’t panned out to be proven one way or the other, Bush has ads out within hours and is hammering on about it in his speeches, I daresay there would be several articles in this side screaming about Rove and an ‘October Surprise’.

Hell, I think some of you are all still waiting for them to bring out bin Laden from where they have him stashed, aren’t you? Or find that cache of ‘WMD’ (planted) that they will find somewhere in Iraq? Don’t we have those outrages already typed up and ready to post when they happen?

Sure, I think we should find out what happened, if we CAN find out what happened, but for the Kerry camp to do what it has been doing with the story in cooperation with CBS and the NYT? There’s no way to say for sure that the ammo was taken after the war, or after the US forces got there. There is no way to say that it is a failure or not. But is that stopping Kerry, the man who wants to be president over all else, willing to do whatever it takes…?

Apparently not.

Rhinehold —

They story broke in the spring of 2003. No one thought it was much of a story then based on what they found out. It was ignored by most media for months because there was little, if any, story there.

Now, the NYT and CBS get a ‘tip’ from a ‘source’ that this story exists, they don’t check it well enough to know that this was all looked at a year ago, CBS admits that they planned to run the story the day before the election for the precise reason of it potentially being damaging to Bush, provided they don’t have time to counter it. The NYT jumped a little early, and with hours the Kerry camp has an ad playing and it is inserted into his speeches?

How about some links for those assertions? If the story broke in 2003, I sure didn’t hear it, because I would have found it as astounding then as I do now. As for CBS admitting to having a political agenda, I definitely need a link to that quote.

Hell, I think some of you are all still waiting for them to bring out bin Laden from where they have him stashed, aren’t you? Or find that cache of ‘WMD’ (planted) that they will find somewhere in Iraq? Don’t we have those outrages already typed up and ready to post when they happen?

“When” they happen? Not “if?” Apparently you believe in the cynicism of this administration the same way I do, but it doesn’t bother you.

There’s no way to say for sure that the ammo was taken after the war, or after the US forces got there. There is no way to say that it is a failure or not.

That’s where I (seriously) disagree with you. Whether it was moved before the invasion or after, it was as a result of our preparing to invade the country and therefore the responsibility of the Bush administration. If it was moved prior to the invasion we should have been aware of the activity, knowing exactly where the facility was and what was stored there, we should have been watching it. No, this is not another “but it’s not his fault.” Bush promised us he was capable of handling the responsibility of being president and I for one am not going to allow him to shirk it.

I already posted this in Eric’s thread on this but I figure I should post it here, too.

“This investigation is important, and a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not the person you want as your commander in chief,” said Bush.

thats pretty funny that Bush/Cheney say Kerry should check his facts.
If they had “checked their facts” the U.S. would be in this mess.

here’s another quote from that same article

“America is now investigating a number of possible scenarios, including that the explosives may have been moved before our troops even arrived at the site,” said Bush.

This shit happened over a year ago, and their investigating it now??
Its only being lookied into now, because the public is now informed and wants to know. otherwise it would have been swept under the rug.

Here is a link to an editorial that states the points surrounding this election much better than I ever could.

I pray that all you blue blooded Neville Chamberlains out there will take heart.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_28_04_MM.html

Kirk,

Hey, the author is right:

The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions.

That “chilling message” is … tell the truth.

Dan