Reply With Quote
He has already accused US soldiers of raping and pillaging like Genghis Khan and being war criminals...why not call them liers too?So what's Kerry going to do? Accuse a U.S. soldier of lying?
Damn Kerry, you just can't catch a break...
So what's Kerry going to do? Accuse a U.S. soldier of lying?FLASH 10.29.01 11:36:56 ET /// Soldier to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al Qaqaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons... Developing...
He has already accused US soldiers of raping and pillaging like Genghis Khan and being war criminals...why not call them liers too?So what's Kerry going to do? Accuse a U.S. soldier of lying?
Damn, good point...
Carry on.
Grow up some.
If true, then John Kerry and his supporters in the media just spent the week before the election making the case that the Hussein regime had serious weapons which cons uted a grave threat to the United States and weapons which were eliminated as a result of the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of the Hussein regime.
Why didn't Kerry just say "Halliburton" 500 times this week? That would have been better than making the case for your in bent opponent's most controversial decision of his presidency in the last week of the campaign.
Checkmate.
You should heed your own advice, as much slinging and cracks at Bush as you make.Grow up some.
I know you've got your panties in a bunch because your boy Kerry will be officially owned after this press conference.
LOL Why don't you take a tip from Bush and don't jump to conclusions before we have all the facts?
What does "grow up some" have to do with fact analysis. How do you apply facts to a personal attack?
Slight problem: you wouldn't have the "facts" about Hussein's regime with total accuracy without overthrowing the Hussein regime.
As the Kerry campaign and The New York Times have reminded us this week, Hussein had serious weapons which posed a "grave threat" to the United States and had to be removed by necessary force.
If this is true this is very alarming. If this is false this is still very alarming.
If it is true:
Bush admin lied about the weapons being gone before hand. OR they had no idea what was going on. Either way it comes down to the incompetence issue.
If it is false:
Well it shows the desperation of the Repubs. They are in damage control mode.
I have employees that go out every day on jobs.If it is true:
Bush admin lied about the weapons being gone before hand. OR they had no idea what was going on. Either way it comes down to the incompetence issue.
If it is false:
Well it shows the desperation of the Repubs. They are in damage control mode.
Sometimes customers call with specific questions about their job that I don't know the answer to. I tell them I will have to talk to the guys that were there and get back to them.
I don't consider myself to be imcompetent just because I don't know every single thing that every single employee did on any given day...especially if it was over a year ago...
I consider the fact that they took a few days to get all the facts straight before responding to be a good thing. It is hardly a reflection of incompetence.
So who was incompetent? Our troops? Have you ever had a job? If so, who do you think is responsible when say, a customer leaves pissed off at the low man on the totem pole they probably dealt with?Bush admin lied about the weapons being gone before hand. OR they had no idea what was going on. Either way it comes down to the incompetence issue.
Bush is managing a war and you guys want to hold him accountable for some troops missing some explosives in a compound with a thousand buildings.
Like my dad (Vietnam vet) says: "it's war, happens."
Yes, I've had a job and took responsibility when my men screwed up.
As Commander-in-Chief he needs to be ready to take responsibility for the good and the bad. He wants to take credit for "making America safer" but doesn't want to when things go bad?
That is not a quality I want in my president.
And I'm a veteran too.
Well from what I saw the soldier came to the podium alongside Rumsfeld's political aide. (Isn't the Pentagon supposed to be politics-neutral? ) Yes, the soldier said they removed tons of materials & equipment from the site on April 13.
But everything they removed had been in open facilities -- none of it under IAEA seals - which were still in place on April 18, per videotape . Pressed by reporters, both the aide and the soldier agreed they could not say that the materials destroyed were the IAEA-protected explosives that are missing.
About time the Pentagon reporters grew some balls.
more details
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137017,00.html
So I get it, he's Republican, so everything that happens under his watch is his fault. The tech bubble burst under CLinton, but I bet you still think he's a great candidate.He wants to take credit for "making America safer" but doesn't want to when things go bad?
That is not a quality I want in my president.
If you're a vet, you know that our government is one big old bureaucracy. I've been around much smaller bureaucracies (like universities) where the head man didn't know what the lowly janitor was up to, doesn't mean you should can your president.
Now you are spinning everything.
I've heard many a conservative republican blame Clinton for 9/11.
It goes both ways or have you forgotten the bashing Clinton took during his terms as president?
It comes with the office.
Dud.
I appreciate the Pentagon's effort today, but they don't, yet, know what/where/if those 360 tons of explosives (not munitions) were/are.
Which, these explosives having been one of the only findings by the WMD/nuclear inspectors as useful as nuclear detonators for Saddam (and anybody else), makes me wonder why this site didn't have a big reg flag stuck in it to be watched hyper-closely in the weeks, months when the military was told to prepare for the war, and before that? These explosives were located and identified in 1991.
As Rummy said, US owned the skies, and thereby the roads, after the invasion such that the logistical activity of moving 360 tons would have been detected, but didn't the US already own the skies and roads months before the invasion?
I think the distinction must be maintained that weapons-making, high-explosive material is a totally different risk than than same explosive weaponized into munitions. ie, munitions are much harder for terrroists to hide and transport larger volume of artillery s s, mines, grenades, bullets to a target than it is to conceal smaller volume of raw, non-metallic (lighter, formable, non-detectable) explosive.
I accept the point that the 360 tons of missing explosives are under 1% _in tons_ of what the miliatary has found and deestroyed, but that is a distortion since it undestates/ignores the vast superiority and punching power of pure explosive for terrorists purposes. It also includes tons of "just weapons" (unloaded, harmless RPG launchers, rifles, machine guns, even tanks and artillery, etc) as well live ammuntion, which itself contains a tiny %age by weight of explosive payload.
Has the US military actually seized and destroyed these explosives but, due to bad record keeping, can't definitely say so? I would be happy safet of our troops, etc if that was the case, but unhappy that the inventorying was so primitive as to be useless.
So Kerry's hammering of shrub and the CIA for conducting the war without competence is still valid. The single stash of WMD-able materiel, WMD being the main reason shrub started this bogus war, was not even monitored and secured before the war, after warnings by the weapons inspectors. For me, this gives lie to the whole WMD "reason" as a bogus pretext for a war that shrub was going to start NO MATTER WHAT.
When I saw who posted last, I couldn't wait to see what you had to say about "shrub" this time.
Nice points Bouton. I saw the interview and came away with yes, the 3rdID destroyed some of the stockpiled weapons at Al qa Qaa, but they could not say that they destroyed the HMX and BMX explosives for certain. Fact is, we know there were other munitions stored at the Al Qa-qaa site, and that could have been what the 3RD ID destroyed. None-the-less, the commander could not say for certain that the explosives were among the munitions destroyed and they did not break any IAEI seals to get to the munitions that they destroyed.
All in all, this smells like yet another 'version' of the truth from Bush apologists.
Version? , it's reality. Or are you calling our troops liars now? Guess it fits the party huh?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
