Point. Set. Match.

[FlaSoxxJim]

EDIT:  I've read through the articles on this issue on NYT, CNN, and ChiTrib, and all I can find is Kerry saying the troops were "magnificent".  So unless you can show me something else, I'm convinced that "Kerry blamed the troops" is baseless.

Kerry did not blame the troops - he once again blamed the Administration for being unable to execute the war correctly and for not having enough troops there to do what needs to be done.

 

Bush is the one who accused Kerry of blaming the troops, because his saying somethin - anything - wrong about how the war is goin is being spun that way to keep the lemmings confused and make it seem like attacks on Bush are actually attacks on the troops.

 

Guliani DID blame the troops because they, not the President, were there and they should have been able to secure the facility.

[mreye]

Experts who have studied the images say the barrels on the tape contain the high explosive HMX, and the U.N. markings on the barrels are clear....

 

Are these the same experts that said Iraq had WMD prior to the war and we're supposed to think they screwed up then, but are soooo smart and correct this time? This is laughable.

[Rex Kickass]

Let's review the scenarios:

 

Pentagon: Russians helped Iraqis sneak it out of Iraq two days before the war. Here's a picture of a couple trucks at the base. So these weapons are gone, and with another hostile country, Syria - or were when we lost track of it.

 

Based on Iraqi government, several IAEA officials and former weapons inspectors: The weaponry was still in Iraq when the US arrived and until the fall of the Iraqi regime. It was then carted off by looters. So these weapons are gone, and with terrorists or another hostile country, probably Iran, when we lost track of it.

 

How are either of these scenarios excusable? Our goal was to disarm Saddam Hussein and make sure the WMD, which he didn't have, weren't given to terrorists. Along with that goal, it would seem that we would keep major weapons and research sites protected from looting to make sure that components that have dual-use, i.e. this explosive and Nuclear Waste from the Tuawitha facility were not used either.

 

Maybe you forgot, we let the nuclear research facility get looted too. I remember seeing pictures of families who unknowingly took the empty barrells get radiation poisoning when they used the now empty barrels for water.

 

The point that the government's case looks so shaky right now seems to point to a cover up. If they didn't know that the weapons were missing until last week, and then when that excuse doesn't fly, they blame the Russians... how does that make me believe that our administration is more intent on keeping me safe than keeping their jobs? In some ways, the government's story is SO MUCH WORSE. Not only were we both ignorant and incompetent, it means that the Russians beat us in this war, and we weren't even fighting them. That gives me sooo much more confidence in this commander in chief.

[Texsox]

I still don't know how exactly this gets directed to president Bush, since he's not actually on the battlelines, but thats me.

He's the Commander in Chief and has stated in many election speeches that he is the best man to run the military. We keep hearing how the military was in chambles during the Clinton era, low moral, under funded, poor disciplin. I wonder how long that takes to change? If prison abuse, sham medals, unlimited budgets, and poor decisions are what makes our military happy, we have big problems there.

[Texsox]

Are these the same experts that said Iraq had WMD prior to the war and we're supposed to think they screwed up then, but are soooo smart and correct this time? This is laughable.

IIRC the experts were saying Iraq had no WMD, it was the White House who used admittedly faulty and not fully verified information to sell the nation on this war.

[FlaSoxxJim]

IIRC the experts were saying Iraq had no WMD, it was the White House who used admittedly faulty and not fully verified information to sell the nation on this war.

Shhhhh. Don't wake anybody up, Tex.

[jackie hayes]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/28/...ives/index.html

 

 

I think you're a bit premature, or highly selective, in your evidence gathering there Perry Mason.  The video shot was inconclusive according to.........

 

"Michael Lysobey, a former U.N. weapons inspector, told CNN it was unclear from the videotape whether the barrels contained the high-grade explosives.

 

Because al-Qaqaa was a depot for explosives, the barrels and explosives caps on the videotape are "what we would expect to see.""

 

...........

 

Point...Set....Match indeed.  Come see me when you find some real proof.

Lysobey is working from the videotapes alone, while Kay was in charge of examining Iraq's weapons. Kay is therefore in a good position to know what supplies Al-Qaqaa possessed. And, according to him, the depot had nothing but HMX or RDX that resembled the explosives seen in the video. It may not be definitive, but that's a pretty good argument.

 

Even the soldiers in the video claim that these are powerful explosives. So we have the military finding a weapons depot packed with explosives they believe to be quite dangerous, then leaving it unguarded. (The news team reports that soldiers were camped a couple miles south of these facilities, even when they were there.) I don't see how anyone can not be uncomfortable with that outline, which is indisputable.

[mreye]

Shhhhh.  Don't wake anybody up, Tex.

Oh please. Few disputed the WMDs prior to the war. Prior and after, I said we didn't need them, that human rights abuses were enough.

[jackie hayes]

Oh please. Few disputed the WMDs prior to the war. Prior and after, I said we didn't need them, that human rights abuses were enough.

Except the UN weapons inspectors who were actually in Iraq looking for them? Except them, you mean?

 

Well, naturally, how would they know anything...

[Texsox]

Oh please. Few disputed the WMDs prior to the war. Prior and after, I said we didn't need them, that human rights abuses were enough.

The world disputed the WMD. Years of UN weapons inspections that turned up nothing supported it. The CIA, when they gave the information to the President, hedged and said the information wasn't verified. Then Bush ran with it, send Powell to the UN with it, and then started spinning after non were found.

 

The human rights argument fails when one considers the abuses in the Sudan involve far more humans, and far more brutality.

 

Bush sold the war onm making America safer. That Iraq posessed WMD and were an immediate threat. Many people believed the President, just as many believed the past President when he said he did not have *sex* with that woman.

Edited October 29, 2004 by Texsox

[mreye]

The human rights argument fails when one considers the abuses in the Sudan involve far more humans, and far more brutality.

Why? Because there are abuses elsewhere we should have left this one alone and went to Sudan? Korea? Should Bush had taken a poll to find out? Should he had stuck his thumb up in the wind?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

The human rights argument fails when one considers the abuses in the Sudan involve far more humans, and far more brutality.

Sudan was not an issue then, but for years your side saw fit to blame America for the suffering of the Iraqi people even though Kofi Annan and Jacque Chirac & Vladimir Putin were getting rich off their backs skimming money off the top of the Oil for Food program.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Sudan was not an issue then, but for years your side saw fit to blame America for the suffering of the Iraqi people even though Kofi Annan and Jacque Chirac & Vladimir Putin were getting rich off their backs skimming money off the top of the Oil for Food program.

And US companies like Halliburton and men like Dick Cheney were getting rich selling him pulse generators (which could be used to detonate nukes).

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

And US companies like Halliburton and men like Dick Cheney were getting rich selling him pulse generators (which could be used to detonate nukes).

Now Halliburton is selling them nuclear weapons technology? Gimme a f***ing break.

[jackie hayes]

Sudan was not an issue then, but for years your side saw fit to blame America for the suffering of the Iraqi people even though Kofi Annan and Jacque Chirac & Vladimir Putin were getting rich off their backs skimming money off the top of the Oil for Food program.

Cite?

 

Tex's point is that, since human rights violations are (all of a sudden) the reason for the war in Iraq, the US should pick the worst ongoing human rights abuses for invasion. What's invalid about that argument? We should at least be making plans to invade the Sudan, or making noise that other countries should do so.

 

And was Iraq at the time the worst violator of human rights? I doubt it, but I don't know for certain.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Now Halliburton is selling them nuclear weapons technology?  Gimme a f***ing break.

Nuke, it was oil machinery that had the capability to be used to detonate nukes. Plus, it was sorta kind ILLEGAL for the US companies to deal with countries that we had sanctions against.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nuke, it was oil machinery that had the capability to be used to detonate nukes.  Plus, it was sorta kind ILLEGAL for the US companies to deal with countries that we had sanctions against.

I tend to think they sold them that equipment as part of oil for food because theres no way something like that would have gone un-noticed/un-punished if it was done under the table.

 

Now all that brand new night vision equipment, ordinance & machine guns we found over there still in packing crates which were stamped "Made in France" & others stamped "Made in Russia"................

[mreye]

Cite?

 

Tex's point is that, since human rights violations are (all of a sudden) the reason for the war in Iraq, the US should pick the worst ongoing human rights abuses for invasion.  What's invalid about that argument?  We should at least be making plans to invade the Sudan, or making noise that other countries should do so.

 

And was Iraq at the time the worst violator of human rights?  I doubt it, but I don't know for certain.

Just defending myself here:

 

I said prior to the war that the human rights abuses were enough evidence for me, personally. It isn't "all of a sudden" with me. Just saying.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

And was Iraq at the time the worst violator of human rights?  I doubt it, but I don't know for certain.

Maybe not the worst but they certainly were up there on the list.

 

Examples......

 

We talked to numerous people over there who had limbs chopped off, ears sliced off, pick a body part.

 

The sadism of Saddams 2 sons is well documented.

 

Mass graves are being uncovered in Iraq even as recently as last week.

 

Then there's the gassing of the Kurds and Sheites (sp).

[mreye]

Maybe not the worst but they certainly were up there on the list.

 

Examples......

 

We talked to numerous people over there who had limbs chopped off,  ears sliced off,  pick a body part.

 

The sadism of Saddams 2 sons is well documented.

 

Mass graves are being uncovered in Iraq even as recently as last week.

 

Then there's the gassing of the Kurds and Sheites (sp).

Yeah, and they were the head of Human Rights in the UN.

[mreye]

Yeah, and they were the head of Human Rights in the UN.   

Oh. I'm sorry. Shhhh I don't want to wake anyone up.

[Texsox]

Why? Because there are abuses elsewhere we should have left this one alone and went to Sudan? Korea? Should Bush had taken a poll to find out? Should he had stuck his thumb up in the wind?

It depends on if you believe elected officials should do what their constituents want done. If you believe the elected official should not take into consideration the beliefs of the people who elected them, then no, he shouldn't have polled. If you think they should find out what the American people want, then a poll may be helpful.

 

What is interesting is the human rights violations were not front and center of Powell's appeal to the UN, and the adminstration's justification of going to war. It was about 45 seconds in an hour long appeal, and near the end.

 

Speech here

 

The issues in the Sudan have been going on for years. Researching the history will show that if Clinton wasn't busy defining what "sex" is and isn't, he should have done something then. Sudan was an issue then as well.

 

Before someone starts the "support our troops" argument about criticizing our waging war, let me ask.

 

If you care how we spend our tax money, shouldn't we also care, even more so, how we spend a more precious commodity, the lives of our troops? You want a tax cut? How about supporting a death cut? How about supporting a reduction in the number of young men and women who are being killed in Iraq?

[WSoxShuf]

I guess Kerry did know all the facts.

 

 

Bush is a hunk of s***, VOTE KERRY

[Rex Kickass]

Well, damn. This story just keeps getting more and more confusing.

 

Apparently a soldier will be talking about how he removed 200 tons of weaponry from Al QaQaa within the hour. If true, its a definite relief. But still a concern that the Pentagon came up with four other stories before this one.

 

So if true, I was wrong.

[mreye]

What is interesting is the human rights violations were not front and center of Powell's appeal to the UN, and the adminstration's justification of going to war. It was about 45 seconds in an hour long appeal, and near the end.

I know that and I've said before that it was a mistake. I've said on here and in my personal life to others that they should have pounded the abuses and it would have been more than plenty for me.