Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq
Snit
----- Start Quotes -----
In a massive pre-election embarrassment for the Bush administration, nearly
350 tons of lethal explosives - which could be used to trigger nuclear
weapons - have vanished from a military facility in Iraq supposed to have
been guarded by US troops.
---
According to The New York Times, which broke the story in a lengthy
front-page story, the missing stockpiles - some 350 tons in all - are of
HMX, RMX and PETN, extremely powerful, conventional explosives that are used
to blow up buildings, fill missile warheads or detonate nuclear weapons. So
devastating are they that just one pound of a similar explosive was enough
to destroy Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in December 1988. HMX, RMX, or
explosives like them have been used in car and apartment bombings in Moscow
and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in recent years.
---
At the time of the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the explosives
were being stored by the Saddam regime, under United Nations control at the
al-Qaqaa military facility south of Baghdad, which was mentioned in the
Government's September 2002 dossier as a source of possible chemical-weapons
production. Some time after the fall of Saddam the explosives disappeared,
but their loss was not formally notified to the Bush administration and the
IAEA nuclear watchdog agency in Vienna until two weeks ago.
---
The White House immediately moved to contain the possible political damage,
playing down the threat posed by the explosives.
----- End Quotes -----
First, the Bush administration says that weapons that are in Iraq are a
reason to go to war with the country... then *those* weapons are found to be
a lie / mistake / hoax / whatever... and now the Bush administration wants
us to believe the hundreds of tons of powerful explosives it let get looted
are no big deal.
Maybe the Bush administration should have spent as much resources defending
the very weapons that actually *may* be used against us as they spent
defending the oil records... and lying about WMD... and lying about
connections with 9/11.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
GreyCloud
Snit wrote:
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048
>
> ----- Start Quotes -----
>
> In a massive pre-election embarrassment for the Bush administration, nearly
> 350 tons of lethal explosives - which could be used to trigger nuclear
> weapons - have vanished from a military facility in Iraq supposed to have
> been guarded by US troops.
>
I wonder where this fictitious report about triggering nuclear weapons
came from? It doesn't happen or work that way.
And how come people are going to blame Bush for the theft, if it was
indeed theft? He wasn't there guarding it.
--
---------------------------------
Th3 G0ld3n Yrs Sux0r
MuahMan
"GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote in message
news:nIednTs0WbF...@bresnan.com...
>
>
> Snit wrote:
>
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048
>>
>> ----- Start Quotes -----
>>
>> In a massive pre-election embarrassment for the Bush administration,
>> nearly
>> 350 tons of lethal explosives - which could be used to trigger nuclear
>> weapons - have vanished from a military facility in Iraq supposed to have
>> been guarded by US troops.
>>
>
> I wonder where this fictitious report about triggering nuclear weapons
> came from? It doesn't happen or work that way.
>
> And how come people are going to blame Bush for the theft, if it was
> indeed theft? He wasn't there guarding it.
>
Snit
nIednTs0WbF...@bresnan.com on 10/25/04 6:29 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048
>>
>> ----- Start Quotes -----
>>
>> In a massive pre-election embarrassment for the Bush administration, nearly
>> 350 tons of lethal explosives - which could be used to trigger nuclear
>> weapons - have vanished from a military facility in Iraq supposed to have
>> been guarded by US troops.
>>
>
> I wonder where this fictitious report about triggering nuclear weapons
> came from? It doesn't happen or work that way.
Can not say I know one way or the other - what is your source? From
multiple sources around the 'net:
http://snipurl.com/a266
One substance found in large quantities at the Al Qaqaa facility was the
explosive HMX, which Fleming said had "a potential use in a nuclear
explosive device as a detonator".
An IAEA spokeswoman said the explosives were conventional, non-nuclear,
but highly explosive and they could be used to detonate a nuclear bomb.
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.
> And how come people are going to blame Bush for the theft, if it was
> indeed theft? He wasn't there guarding it.
His troops were... and he is the one ultimately in charge of where they are
deployed and how effective they are. The US, under Bush, failed to keep
secure a large and very dangerous cache of weaponry. While claiming to work
to keep weapons out of the hands of the "evil doers", Bush seems to have
essentially handed the "evil doers" a large amount of weapons. This is not
a small thing.
--
L Cramer
theft of Iraqi weapon stockpiles, of which Saddam had scattered all over
Iraq, was well reported in the news media in months following the war. And
nobody seems to know for sure just when this stockpile vanished.
The bombshell here is of the "October surprise" kind that has as its sole
purpose the swaying of voters.
Yep, we should have sent more troops to Iraq. Such is the story of most
battles and wars.
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message
news:BDA2DEE8.D420%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...
Jason McNorton
SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID says...
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048
>
> ----- Start Quotes -----
>
> In a massive pre-election embarrassment for the Bush administration, nearly
> 350 tons of lethal explosives - which could be used to trigger nuclear
> weapons - have vanished from a military facility in Iraq supposed to have
> been guarded by US troops.
NBCNEWS: HUGE CACHE OF EXPLOSIVES VANISHED FROM SITE IN IRAQ -- AT LEAST
18 MONTHS AGO -- BEFORE TROOPS ARRIVED
Breaking tomorrow. This one's debunked really fast, before the kooky
leftwingers' very eyes.
Snit
MPG.1be773736...@news-40.giganews.com on 10/25/04 7:33 PM:
Perhaps you should read the article that was linked to. You would have
found this quote that not only is contrary to your claims, but does not need
to be in all caps to make its point:
----- Start Quotes -----
At the time of the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the explosives
were being stored by the Saddam regime, under United Nations control at the
al-Qaqaa military facility south of Baghdad, which was mentioned in the
Government's September 2002 dossier as a source of possible chemical-weapons
production. Some time after the fall of Saddam the explosives disappeared,
but their loss was not formally notified to the Bush administration and the
IAEA nuclear watchdog agency in Vienna until two weeks ago.
In a letter on 10 October 2004, the Ministry of Science and Technology of
the interim Iraqi government of Iyad Allawi detailed the losses to the IAEA,
which it ascribed to "theft and looting". Five days later, the agency sent
the letter to Bush's administration.
----- End Quotes -----
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
>http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048
>
>According to The New York Times
Sorry. This story is a No Pass. And those five words above shoud start
to be a red flag.
http://www.drudgereport.com/nbcw.htm
" An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa
weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of
Iraq.
" According to NBCNEWS, the HMX and RDX explosives were already
missing when the American troops arrived. "
>First, the Bush administration says that weapons that are in Iraq are a
>reason to go to war with the country... then *those* weapons are found to be
>a lie / mistake / hoax / whatever... and now the Bush administration wants
>us to believe the hundreds of tons of powerful explosives it let get looted
>are no big deal.
>
>Maybe the Bush administration should have spent as much resources defending
>the very weapons that actually *may* be used against us as they spent
>defending the oil records... and lying about WMD... and lying about
>connections with 9/11.
The story is a NYT "Election Week Special". Take it with a grain of
salt, please.
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
>His troops were... and he is the one ultimately in charge of where they are
>deployed and how effective they are. The US, under Bush, failed to keep
>secure a large and very dangerous cache of weaponry.
This is utterly false. Please read the Drudge Report update on this
story today. The weapons were removed before the US Troops ever got
there in 2003.
There is some ugly revisionism going on at the NYT. The liberal media
is in a Last Gasp Effort to try to alter this election.
> While claiming to work
>to keep weapons out of the hands of the "evil doers", Bush seems to have
>essentially handed the "evil doers" a large amount of weapons. This is not
>a small thing.
The New York Times Fraud is not a small thing. As was the CBS News
Fraud about the forged documents.
Are the liberals outraged at these iddy biddy teeny weeny factual
errors that are creeping up in the media?
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
>"Jason McNorton" <jm...@comcast.net> wrote in post
>MPG.1be773736...@news-40.giganews.com on 10/25/04 7:33 PM:
>
>> In article <BDA2DEE8.D420%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID says...
>>> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048
>>>
>>> ----- Start Quotes -----
>>>
>>> In a massive pre-election embarrassment for the Bush administration, nearly
>>> 350 tons of lethal explosives - which could be used to trigger nuclear
>>> weapons - have vanished from a military facility in Iraq supposed to have
>>> been guarded by US troops.
>>
>> NBCNEWS: HUGE CACHE OF EXPLOSIVES VANISHED FROM SITE IN IRAQ -- AT LEAST
>> 18 MONTHS AGO -- BEFORE TROOPS ARRIVED
>>
>> Breaking tomorrow. This one's debunked really fast, before the kooky
>> leftwingers' very eyes.
>
>Perhaps you should read the article that was linked to. You would have
>found this quote that not only is contrary to your claims, but does not need
>to be in all caps to make its point: [SNIP]
Please have a look at
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041026-122118-2138r.htm
----- Start Quotes -----
But Pentagon officials said yesterday that Iraq had already
admitted to breaking the IAEA seals and moving tons of the explosives
from the Al Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad, before U.N. inspectors
re-entered the country in 2002. Officials said the rest of the
explosives stockpiles may have been removed and hidden before the
arrival of American troops.
That explanation was bolstered last night by a report from NBC
News, which said the weapons already were missing when their embedded
reporter arrived at the site on April 10, 2003.
"NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne
as they [took] over the weapons installation south of Baghdad. But
they never found the 380 tons" of missing explosives, the network
reported.
A Pentagon statement said troops searched the Al Qaqaa site
during and after major combat. They searched 32 bunkers and 87 other
buildings, the Pentagon said, but found no weapons of mass destruction
or any material under IAEA seal
----- End Quotes -----
--phil
Snit
86prn0dck93qdso25...@4ax.com on 10/25/04 10:49 PM:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:38:33 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>> His troops were... and he is the one ultimately in charge of where they are
>> deployed and how effective they are. The US, under Bush, failed to keep
>> secure a large and very dangerous cache of weaponry.
>
> This is utterly false. Please read the Drudge Report update on this
> story today. The weapons were removed before the US Troops ever got
> there in 2003.
Hmmm, you told me earlier to take with a grain of salt the NY Times... and
how do you take the Drudge Report. :)
The Drudge Report claims it was 60 Minutes who brought this up. Odd. It
talks about some "source" for two news agencies but does not mention who
that source is. Again, odd. Perhaps it was the U.N. nuclear agency, but
the story does not make that clear.
>
> There is some ugly revisionism going on at the NYT. The liberal media
> is in a Last Gasp Effort to try to alter this election.
>
>> While claiming to work
>> to keep weapons out of the hands of the "evil doers", Bush seems to have
>> essentially handed the "evil doers" a large amount of weapons. This is not
>> a small thing.
>
> The New York Times Fraud is not a small thing. As was the CBS News
> Fraud about the forged documents.
>
> Are the liberals outraged at these iddy biddy teeny weeny factual
> errors that are creeping up in the media?
I would want to see facts from both sides in more detail. Funny how Bush is
not commenting on this... any idea why not?
Snit
May have been? Would like to know something more conclusive... and even if
it was before the US got there, wasn't one of the goals of going into Iraq
to get weapons. Still seems like a pretty big failure - though not as big
as if it was Nukes or something like that.
> That explanation was bolstered last night by a report from NBC
> News, which said the weapons already were missing when their embedded
> reporter arrived at the site on April 10, 2003.
> "NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne
> as they [took] over the weapons installation south of Baghdad. But
> they never found the 380 tons" of missing explosives, the network
> reported.
> A Pentagon statement said troops searched the Al Qaqaa site
> during and after major combat. They searched 32 bunkers and 87 other
> buildings, the Pentagon said, but found no weapons of mass destruction
> or any material under IAEA seal
>
> ----- End Quotes -----
>
> --phil
>
--
John
> "Phil Earnhardt" <p...@dim.com> wrote in post
> 86prn0dck93qdso25...@4ax.com on 10/25/04 10:49 PM:
>
>
>>On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:38:33 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>His troops were... and he is the one ultimately in charge of where they are
>>>deployed and how effective they are. The US, under Bush, failed to keep
>>>secure a large and very dangerous cache of weaponry.
>>
>>This is utterly false. Please read the Drudge Report update on this
>>story today. The weapons were removed before the US Troops ever got
>>there in 2003.
>
>
> Hmmm, you told me earlier to take with a grain of salt the NY Times... and
> how do you take the Drudge Report. :)
>
> The Drudge Report claims it was 60 Minutes who brought this up. Odd. It
> talks about some "source" for two news agencies but does not mention who
> that source is. Again, odd. Perhaps it was the U.N. nuclear agency, but
> the story does not make that clear.
>
Phil has just demonstrated his ignorance. Only a low IQ kook would
read the Drudge report.
Phil Earnhardt
>Phil has just demonstrated his ignorance. Only a low IQ kook would
>read the Drudge report.
"John": I may disagree with Snit, but we can have an adult discussion
here.
If all you want to do in the discussion is hurl insults, would you
mind moving those comments over to e-mail?
Thanks!
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
>"Phil Earnhardt" <p...@dim.com> wrote in post
>86prn0dck93qdso25...@4ax.com on 10/25/04 10:49 PM:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:38:33 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> His troops were... and he is the one ultimately in charge of where they are
>>> deployed and how effective they are. The US, under Bush, failed to keep
>>> secure a large and very dangerous cache of weaponry.
>>
>> This is utterly false. Please read the Drudge Report update on this
>> story today. The weapons were removed before the US Troops ever got
>> there in 2003.
>
>Hmmm, you told me earlier to take with a grain of salt the NY Times... and
>how do you take the Drudge Report. :)
Yes. Have you read _Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times
Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted_ ?
My personal favorite (well after this book was published): over the
last year: in February, the Wall Street Journal broke the story in the
US about the Al Mada spreadsheet documenting the recepients of bribes
from the "Oil for Food" program. They presented a well-researched
detailed story.
Did you read it at the time?
Did you note: it was months (!) later that the NYT even mentioned the
story. Months! In one of the biggest stories of the year! And this is
from a newspaper that claims to publish "All the news that is fit to
print"
>The Drudge Report claims it was 60 Minutes who brought this up. Odd. It
>talks about some "source" for two news agencies but does not mention who
>that source is. Again, odd. Perhaps it was the U.N. nuclear agency, but
>the story does not make that clear.
Did you read the Washington Times article?
Do you still have a doubt that these missing explosives didn't go
missing in 2004?
>> There is some ugly revisionism going on at the NYT. The liberal media
>> is in a Last Gasp Effort to try to alter this election.
<Silence.>
>>
>>> While claiming to work
>>> to keep weapons out of the hands of the "evil doers", Bush seems to have
>>> essentially handed the "evil doers" a large amount of weapons. This is not
>>> a small thing.
>>
>> The New York Times Fraud is not a small thing. As was the CBS News
>> Fraud about the forged documents.
>>
>> Are the liberals outraged at these iddy biddy teeny weeny factual
>> errors that are creeping up in the media?
>
>I would want to see facts from both sides in more detail.
Then I recommend looking somewhere other than the NYT.
> Funny how Bush is
>not commenting on this... any idea why not?
If GW Bush commented every time the NYT failed to get it right on a
story, he would have no time to do anything else as president. ;-)
All seriousness aside: the Pentagon has commented in detail on these
reports already. It's not the President's job to comment on the
mis-reportings of the American Media. He didn't comment on the fake
memos that "60 Minutes" reported and defended as accurate, either.
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
>> But Pentagon officials said yesterday that Iraq had already
>> admitted to breaking the IAEA seals and moving tons of the explosives
>> from the Al Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad, before U.N. inspectors
>> re-entered the country in 2002. Officials said the rest of the
>> explosives stockpiles may have been removed and hidden before the
>> arrival of American troops.
>
>May have been? Would like to know something more conclusive...
I would have fondly hoped that the NYT had researched their story far
more conclusively before they published it. A story with fundamental
facts wrong is always bad, but publishing such a politically charged
story a week before the election that happens to be wrong should be
criminal.
>and even if
>it was before the US got there, wasn't one of the goals of going into Iraq
>to get weapons. Still seems like a pretty big failure - though not as big
>as if it was Nukes or something like that.
It demonstrates yet another UN Directive that Saddam failed to follow.
He knew that he had the proper people bribed to block UNSC approval
for an invasion of Iraq.
Also: this blows up the title of your thread: there was no loss of 350
tons from the stockpiles since the US occupied Iraq.
When do you think we'll see the retraction from the NYT?
--phil
Snit
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:11:14 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>>> But Pentagon officials said yesterday that Iraq had already
>>> admitted to breaking the IAEA seals and moving tons of the explosives
>>> from the Al Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad, before U.N. inspectors
>>> re-entered the country in 2002. Officials said the rest of the
>>> explosives stockpiles may have been removed and hidden before the
>>> arrival of American troops.
>>
>> May have been? Would like to know something more conclusive...
>
> I would have fondly hoped that the NYT had researched their story far
> more conclusively before they published it. A story with fundamental
> facts wrong is always bad, but publishing such a politically charged
> story a week before the election that happens to be wrong should be
> criminal.
It certainly should be reason to question the news paper... I would like to
see what makes this current news... there were recent dates in what they
commented on - but I would have to dig back through the info I posted.
>
>> and even if
>> it was before the US got there, wasn't one of the goals of going into Iraq
>> to get weapons. Still seems like a pretty big failure - though not as big
>> as if it was Nukes or something like that.
>
> It demonstrates yet another UN Directive that Saddam failed to follow.
> He knew that he had the proper people bribed to block UNSC approval
> for an invasion of Iraq.
>
> Also: this blows up the title of your thread: there was no loss of 350
> tons from the stockpiles since the US occupied Iraq.
It was the title of the article...
>
> When do you think we'll see the retraction from the NYT?
Nov. 3. :)
Snit
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:09:22 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>> "Phil Earnhardt" <p...@dim.com> wrote in post
>> 86prn0dck93qdso25...@4ax.com on 10/25/04 10:49 PM:
>>
>>> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:38:33 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> His troops were... and he is the one ultimately in charge of where they are
>>>> deployed and how effective they are. The US, under Bush, failed to keep
>>>> secure a large and very dangerous cache of weaponry.
>>>
>>> This is utterly false. Please read the Drudge Report update on this
>>> story today. The weapons were removed before the US Troops ever got
>>> there in 2003.
>>
>> Hmmm, you told me earlier to take with a grain of salt the NY Times... and
>> how do you take the Drudge Report. :)
>
> Yes. Have you read _Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times
> Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted_ ?
I have not.
But let us not pretend that this is being reported only in the NY Times:
http://www.4ni.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=34436
----- Start Quotes -----
More than 340 tons of high explosives that had been subject to UN monitoring
were either stolen or looted from a government facility in Iraq, the chief
of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reported.
In a letter to the Security Council, IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei
said the Iraqi authorities informed the agency on October 10 that explosives
lost last year had resulted from "looting of the governmental installations
due to lack of security".
----- End Quotes -----
----- Start Quotes -----
The White House acknowledged Monday that nearly 380 tons of powerful
explosives were missing from a weapons facility that American forces failed
to guard after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq,
----- End Quotes -----
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/041026/2004102605.html
----- Start Quotes -----
She continued that the Iraqis notified the agency that these items were
exposed to theft operations because of the lack of security in the
government's establishments and it is not known what happened to those
items.
----- End Quotes -----
http://www.tdn.com/articles/2004/10/26/nation_world/news02.txt
----- Start Quotes -----
The White House acknowledged Monday that nearly 380 tons of powerful
explosives are missing from a weapons facility that American forces failed
to guard following the U.S. invasion of Iraq, raising fears that the weapons
could be given to terrorists or used for attacks against troops in Iraq.
----- End Quotes -----
http://www.noticias.info/Asp/aspComunicados.asp?nid=37801&src=0
----- Start Quotes -----
In a letter to the IAEA dated October 10, Iraq's director of planning,
Mohammed Abbas, said the material disappeared sometime after Saddam's regime
fell in April 2003 Š
----- End Quotes -----
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/10/26/5985982
----- Start Quotes -----
The complete lack of interest of the Bush administration in actually
securing dangerous materials connected to the old, abandoned Iraqi nuclear
program has long belied Bush's stated concern with Iraq's alleged weapons as
a pretext for the war.
----- End Quotes -----
This is not just the NY Times... currently there are close to 1000 hits on
Google (though some are likely to be false hits...)
<snip>
>> I would want to see facts from both sides in more detail.
>
> Then I recommend looking somewhere other than the NYT.
Agreed... looking at one source is not a good idea if you wish to find
objective and informed views.
>
>> Funny how Bush is
>> not commenting on this... any idea why not?
>
> If GW Bush commented every time the NYT failed to get it right on a
> story, he would have no time to do anything else as president. ;-)
Actually the White House has commented ... but they are not really
answering.
>
> All seriousness aside: the Pentagon has commented in detail on these
> reports already. It's not the President's job to comment on the
> mis-reportings of the American Media. He didn't comment on the fake
> memos that "60 Minutes" reported and defended as accurate, either.
>
> --phil
>
--
Warchild
>
> > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048
> >
> > ----- Start Quotes -----
> >
> > In a massive pre-election embarrassment for the Bush administration,
nearly
> > 350 tons of lethal explosives - which could be used to trigger nuclear
> > weapons - have vanished from a military facility in Iraq supposed to
have
> > been guarded by US troops.
> >
>
> I wonder where this fictitious report about triggering nuclear weapons
> came from? It doesn't happen or work that way.
>
> And how come people are going to blame Bush for the theft, if it was
> indeed theft? He wasn't there guarding it.
No one was there guarding it. Before the war it was being monitored by UN
weapons inspectors, after the war - nada. Yes Bush is responsible, because
no contingency was made for securing the various inspection sites.
Warchild
"Phil Earnhardt" <p...@dim.com> wrote in message
news:86prn0dck93qdso25...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:38:33 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
> >His troops were... and he is the one ultimately in charge of where they
are
> >deployed and how effective they are. The US, under Bush, failed to keep
> >secure a large and very dangerous cache of weaponry.
>
> This is utterly false. Please read the Drudge Report update on this
> story today. The weapons were removed before the US Troops ever got
> there in 2003.
Drudge Report? DRUDGE REPORT? Fuck Christ, are you really that clueless
that you cite Drudge Report?
>
> There is some ugly revisionism going on at the NYT. The liberal media
> is in a Last Gasp Effort to try to alter this election.
>
> > While claiming to work
> >to keep weapons out of the hands of the "evil doers", Bush seems to have
> >essentially handed the "evil doers" a large amount of weapons. This is
not
> >a small thing.
>
> The New York Times Fraud is not a small thing. As was the CBS News
> Fraud about the forged documents.
>
> Are the liberals outraged at these iddy biddy teeny weeny factual
> errors that are creeping up in the media?
>
> --phil
None of which addresses the issue before us, which is the strategic failures
of this administration in the planning and execution of their war in Iraq.
>
GreyCloud
Snit wrote:
> "GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote in post
> nIednTs0WbF...@bresnan.com on 10/25/04 6:29 PM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048
>>>
>>>----- Start Quotes -----
>>>
>>>In a massive pre-election embarrassment for the Bush administration, nearly
>>>350 tons of lethal explosives - which could be used to trigger nuclear
>>>weapons - have vanished from a military facility in Iraq supposed to have
>>>been guarded by US troops.
>>>
>>
>>I wonder where this fictitious report about triggering nuclear weapons
>>came from? It doesn't happen or work that way.
>
>
> Can not say I know one way or the other - what is your source?
Personal experience.
> From
> multiple sources around the 'net:
>
> http://snipurl.com/a266
>
> One substance found in large quantities at the Al Qaqaa facility was the
> explosive HMX, which Fleming said had "a potential use in a nuclear
> explosive device as a detonator".
You have to get a better context here... the material is for use IN a
nuclear device to detonate a nuclear device. This material is the
Detonator of a nuclear weapon. The detonation material has certain
properties that allows the nuclear material to stay together long enough
to cause a real nuclear explosion. If it doesn't, all you'll get is a
false detonation... which means it started to go but the explose force
didn't stay long enough to hold the nuclear material together long
enough to sustain the fission process.
You can't just put this stuff by a nuclear warhead or bomb and expect a
real nuclear explosion.
Which leads to another point: it seems that this was old stuff from
before the first gulf war. This should have been in the care of the UN,
and wasn't.
>
> http://snipurl.com/a26b
>
> An IAEA spokeswoman said the explosives were conventional, non-nuclear,
> but highly explosive and they could be used to detonate a nuclear bomb.
>
To be used as detonators for nukes.
> http://snipurl.com/a26c
>
> 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.
>
Which is why this fell under the UN. Without the nuclear material it is
just that... conventional. It seems that Iraq at one time was trying to
build a nuclear device. Iran is building their nuclear power plants for
supposedly peaceful means, but I'd wager a bit that they are the ones
that stole the detonator material.
>
>>And how come people are going to blame Bush for the theft, if it was
>>indeed theft? He wasn't there guarding it.
>
>
> His troops were... and he is the one ultimately in charge of where they are
> deployed and how effective they are. The US, under Bush, failed to keep
> secure a large and very dangerous cache of weaponry. While claiming to work
> to keep weapons out of the hands of the "evil doers", Bush seems to have
> essentially handed the "evil doers" a large amount of weapons. This is not
> a small thing.
More like a military failure to guard the material. But then, this
apparent belief that if you are in charge that when anything goes wrong
you are the one responsible for the failure. Bush just as easily could
fire and demote those that didn't do their job too. These same people
could very well have been working for Kerry and still have the same
thing happen to him as well.
Warchild
"Phil Earnhardt" <p...@dim.com> wrote in message
news:64usn0t37n8l2tmmc...@4ax.com...
Oh, its the presidents lame 'Being President is hard work' excuse, again.
Don't worry George, soon you will have plenty of free time in which to drink
yourself to death.
GreyCloud
John wrote:
The Drudge report has been accurate far too many times to be ignored.
Like the North Korean missile found in Alaska for one. Doesn't that
make you a bit queasy to know that?
GreyCloud
Phil Earnhardt wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:38:33 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>
>>His troops were... and he is the one ultimately in charge of where they are
>>deployed and how effective they are. The US, under Bush, failed to keep
>>secure a large and very dangerous cache of weaponry.
>
>
> This is utterly false. Please read the Drudge Report update on this
> story today. The weapons were removed before the US Troops ever got
> there in 2003.
>
> There is some ugly revisionism going on at the NYT. The liberal media
> is in a Last Gasp Effort to try to alter this election.
>
I'd believe that. The NYT has been caught fabricating stories before.
For whose ends and agenda we'll never know.
>
>>While claiming to work
>>to keep weapons out of the hands of the "evil doers", Bush seems to have
>>essentially handed the "evil doers" a large amount of weapons. This is not
>>a small thing.
>
>
> The New York Times Fraud is not a small thing. As was the CBS News
> Fraud about the forged documents.
>
> Are the liberals outraged at these iddy biddy teeny weeny factual
> errors that are creeping up in the media?
>
The power struggle I see is a rather odd one. Why is it that there
seems to be a life and death struggle to the presidency? We seem to be
missing a few facts that has been kept from the public here.
Snit
10/26/04 10:47 AM:
>
> "Phil Earnhardt" <p...@dim.com> wrote in message
> news:86prn0dck93qdso25...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:38:33 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> His troops were... and he is the one ultimately in charge of where they are
>>> deployed and how effective they are. The US, under Bush, failed to keep
>>> secure a large and very dangerous cache of weaponry.
>>
>> This is utterly false. Please read the Drudge Report update on this
>> story today. The weapons were removed before the US Troops ever got
>> there in 2003.
>
> Drudge Report? DRUDGE REPORT? Fuck Christ, are you really that clueless
> that you cite Drudge Report?
I must say I found it odd that anyone would state that they do not trust the
NY Times (I can understand that) and then quote Drudge as the sole evidence.
Especially as one is bringing up the validity of source, to use any one
source is questionable, but to use a source that is so clearly biased does
not make any sense to me.
After all, look at Drudges site... is there any doubt he has a strong bias?
GreyCloud
Phil Earnhardt wrote:
One thing for certain... fear sells.
Snit
That is how I read the claim of "triggering"... did you have another
understanding of the claim / use of the word "triggering".
>
>> http://snipurl.com/a26c
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Which is why this fell under the UN. Without the nuclear material it is
> just that... conventional. It seems that Iraq at one time was trying to
> build a nuclear device. Iran is building their nuclear power plants for
> supposedly peaceful means, but I'd wager a bit that they are the ones
> that stole the detonator material.
>
>>
>>> And how come people are going to blame Bush for the theft, if it was
>>> indeed theft? He wasn't there guarding it.
>>
>>
>> His troops were... and he is the one ultimately in charge of where they are
>> deployed and how effective they are. The US, under Bush, failed to keep
>> secure a large and very dangerous cache of weaponry. While claiming to work
>> to keep weapons out of the hands of the "evil doers", Bush seems to have
>> essentially handed the "evil doers" a large amount of weapons. This is not
>> a small thing.
>
> More like a military failure to guard the material. But then, this
> apparent belief that if you are in charge that when anything goes wrong
> you are the one responsible for the failure. Bush just as easily could
> fire and demote those that didn't do their job too. These same people
> could very well have been working for Kerry and still have the same
> thing happen to him as well.
For good or bad, as commander in chief, you are are responsible for the
actions of the military. The military did not do its job.
David Fritzinger
2003. That would be *after* the invasion. Nice try at lying your way
out of it, though.
--
Dave Fritzinger
David Fritzinger
> wrote:
>
> >His troops were... and he is the one ultimately in charge of where they are
> >deployed and how effective they are. The US, under Bush, failed to keep
> >secure a large and very dangerous cache of weaponry.
>
> This is utterly false. Please read the Drudge Report update on this
> story today. The weapons were removed before the US Troops ever got
> there in 2003.
That is just flat out wrong. The Iraqis themselves say the explosives
were removed after April, 2003, which, you will recall, was *after*
the invasion.
>
> There is some ugly revisionism going on at the NYT. The liberal media
> is in a Last Gasp Effort to try to alter this election.
Umm, no, it is the conservatives and the Republicans that are doing
the revisionism. After all, the war on terror is all they've got left,
and, face it, in Iraq, etc. that ain't going too well.
>
> > While claiming to work
> >to keep weapons out of the hands of the "evil doers", Bush seems to have
> >essentially handed the "evil doers" a large amount of weapons. This is not
> >a small thing.
>
> The New York Times Fraud is not a small thing. As was the CBS News
> Fraud about the forged documents.
Sure, yell about the sources when you can't actually refute the story.
>
> Are the liberals outraged at these iddy biddy teeny weeny factual
> errors that are creeping up in the media?
How about the conservatives being outraged about the lies from the
Bush campaign. Such as the mischaracterization of Kerry's health care
plan, The taking out of context of Kerry's statements which make it
look as if he wasn't changed by 9/11 when he actually very concerned
about terrorism *before* 9/11 (unlike the Bushies). Or, the total lack
of responsibility in the administration. People screw up left and
right, and no one takes any responsibilty, or suffers any
consequences. Rumsfeld not putting enough troops in Iraq, the bad
intelligence (or, lies, take your choice) leading up to the war in
Iraq, misleading Congress on the cost of the Medicare drug plan, etc.
Take your choice. Why aren't you outraged about all the lies and
deception of this adminsitration?
--
Dave Fritzinger
>
> --phil
David Fritzinger
If you can use a biased source, so can I (the Washington TImes is, for
all intents and purposes, the Bush administration "official
mouthpiece".). This is from the Daily Mislead, but contains other
sources, such as AP stories. It refutes your story...
ADMINISTRATION MISLEADS ON MISSING EXPLOSIVES
In Iraq, 380 tons of powerful explosives have been looted and may have
fallen into the hands of insurgents. In an effort to deflect blame,
administration officials are pushing the theory that when "U.S.
forces...reached the Al Qaqaa military facility in early April 2003,
the weapons cache was already gone."[1] This theory is not credible.
According to an AP report, U.S. solders visited the Al Qaqaa in April
2003 and "found thousands of five-centimetre by 12-centimetre boxes,
each containing three vials of white powder."[2] Officials who tested
the powder said it was "believed to be explosives."[3] Yesterday, "an
official who monitors developments in Iraq" confirmed that "US-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."[4] Thereafter,
according to the official, "the site was not secured by U.S.
forces."[5]
It makes sense that the explosives were there when the U.S. solders
arrived because, as the LA Times notes, "given the size of the missing
cache, it would have been difficult to relocate undetected before the
invasion, when U.S. spy satellites were monitoring activity."[6]
Sources:
1. "White House Downplays Missing Iraq Explosives," Los Angeles Times,
10/26/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2707006&l=64882.
2. "U.S. troops find signs of chemical readiness," Associated Press,
4/05/03, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2707006&l=64883.
3. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2707006&l=64883.
4. "380 tons of explosives missing in Iraq," Associated Press,
10/25/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2707006&l=64884.
5. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2707006&l=64884.
6. "White House Downplays Missing Iraq Explosives," Los Angeles Times,
10/26/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2707006&l=64882.
Note that the story, while in an admittedly biased site, contains
references from mainstream media sources. Sorry, but the
administration is lying.
--
Dave Fritzinger
John
Because Phil has his head stuffed straight up his ass.
John
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:11:14 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> But Pentagon officials said yesterday that Iraq had already
>>>admitted to breaking the IAEA seals and moving tons of the explosives
>>>from the Al Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad, before U.N. inspectors
>>>re-entered the country in 2002. Officials said the rest of the
>>>explosives stockpiles may have been removed and hidden before the
>>>arrival of American troops.
>>
Bush was so clueless that HE DIDN"T KNOW FOR 18 MONTHS THAT 750,000
pounds of high explosives were missing.
Steve Carroll
Phil Earnhardt <p...@dim.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:09:22 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
> >"Phil Earnhardt" <p...@dim.com> wrote in post
> >86prn0dck93qdso25...@4ax.com on 10/25/04 10:49 PM:
> >
> >> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:38:33 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> His troops were... and he is the one ultimately in charge of where they
> >>> are
> >>> deployed and how effective they are. The US, under Bush, failed to keep
> >>> secure a large and very dangerous cache of weaponry.
> >>
> >> This is utterly false. Please read the Drudge Report update on this
> >> story today. The weapons were removed before the US Troops ever got
> >> there in 2003.
> >
> >Hmmm, you told me earlier to take with a grain of salt the NY Times... and
> >how do you take the Drudge Report. :)
>
> Yes. Have you read _Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times
> Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted_ ?
>
> My personal favorite (well after this book was published): over the
> last year: in February, the Wall Street Journal broke the story in the
> US about the Al Mada spreadsheet documenting the recepients of bribes
> from the "Oil for Food" program. They presented a well-researched
> detailed story.
>
> Did you read it at the time?
Gee, Phil... Snit actually asked a question that was relevant to what he
was discussing for a change. Was there a particular reason that you
showed your hypocritical colors and avoided it:)
"All seriousness aside"?? Glue good today...
--
Snit: "In my view, Bush is guilty based on #1 and #2, but not #3 (he is
morally and criminally guilty, but not legally guilty)."
Snit, speaking in a legal context: "Bush is guilty of breaking the law"
Steve C
Phil Earnhardt
>> If GW Bush commented every time the NYT failed to get it right on a
>> story, he would have no time to do anything else as president. ;-)
>
>Oh, its the presidents lame 'Being President is hard work' excuse, again.
>Don't worry George, soon you will have plenty of free time in which to drink
>yourself to death.
Nope. No president should respond to such hatchet jobs.
It's just like the 60 Minutes forged documents story: there was no
reason for the President to respond; the story will unravel on its
own.
Warchild: were you distressed that someone forged documents in order
to attempt to discredit the President? Or do you think it's OK for
someone to commit felonious acts in order to influence the election?
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
>>>> This is utterly false. Please read the Drudge Report update on this
>>>> story today. The weapons were removed before the US Troops ever got
>>>> there in 2003.
>>>
>>> Hmmm, you told me earlier to take with a grain of salt the NY Times... and
>>> how do you take the Drudge Report. :)
>>
>> Yes. Have you read _Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times
>> Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted_ ?
>
>I have not.
Then you should do your homework before starting to cite the NYT.
Snipping the rest of this discussion is not sufficient:
When exactly did you hear about the "Food for Oil" program bribery
spreadsheet, Snit? Did your read the story when the WSJ broke it in
February? If not, when did you hear about it? Or have you still not
heard about it?
This is one of the most important stories of the last decade. It
points to the failure of the UN to police its "humanitarian" program
and allow over $10B to be stolen by one of the worst dictators in our
history. It also points to the failure of the UNSC: what if one or
more of the seats on that hallowed body has been compromised to the
point where they will never vote for an invasion of Iraq -- no matter
how many UN mandates are violated?
You ignored those questions in another thread. How about addressing
them here, please.
Finally: what does it mean if one of the most prominent news-reporting
organizations on the planet -- "all the news that's fit to print" --
somehow manages to not report on this story for *months* after it has
been broken. What does that say about their impartiality.
The NYT's credibility has been mortally wounded. Read the book.
You attempted to challenge the credibility of The Drudge Report. What
are you basing that on, please?
>But let us not pretend that this is being reported only in the NY Times:
>http://www.4ni.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=34436
That looks like a wire-service report. What does
(gmcg/sp)
mean at the bottom of that report?
Oops. The citation on that story is "Times Staff Writers." And the
www.nytimes.com has the same story on their webpage right now.
>http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/041026/2004102605.html
Again, it's a tinytiny news story. Looks like another wire-service
job. It says nothing about when the materials disappeared.
Snit: this site looks like a republisher of stories from other sites
-- a small website. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
How did you get all of these? Are you familiar with the sources? Or
did you just do some google diving with news.google.com ?
>http://www.tdn.com/articles/2004/10/26/nation_world/news02.txt
That's a reprint from the LA Times. Why are you citing a paper in
Longview, WA, for a story that should be attributed to them.
The actual story count is now up to 2: one from the NYT and one from
the LA Times. Two of those stalwart organizations for impartial
journalism, right?
http://www.noticias.info/Asp/aspComunicados.asp?nid=37801&src=0
That's a reprint from cnn.com ! Did you go look at their story to see
where they got it from?
>http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/10/26/5985982
The website keeps timing out on me. It doesn't sound like a newspaper.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>This is not just the NY Times... currently there are close to 1000 hits on
>Google (though some are likely to be false hits...)
Many are echoes of the same story. Think about it, Snit: there's no
possible way that 1000 organizations could have done anything with
this story other than regurgitate each other's stories. By my count, I
see two real reports: the NYT and the LA Times. The CNN story might
have some original reporting, but the jury's out on that.
>>> I would want to see facts from both sides in more detail.
>>
>> Then I recommend looking somewhere other than the NYT.
>
>Agreed... looking at one source is not a good idea if you wish to find
>objective and informed views.
And the trouble with Google Diving is that it's hard to know when
you're getting some original material.
After reading the NYT/LATimes story (stories?), a good thing to read
is what the National Review has to say:
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editorial200410260951.asp
--- Begin quoted material ---
Now, it seems another 377 tons of high-power explosives are gone. The
thrust of the Times story is that they are missing because of the Bush
administration's carelessness right after the liberation. But even
International Atomic Energy Agency experts cited in the Times report
say Iraqi officials probably removed the explosives prior to the war.
These experts, it is true, contend that the officials didn’t take them
far from Al Qadaa. But how do they know? According to administration
sources, Coalition forces were at the site during and after
hostilities and searched roughly 30 bunkers and 90 other buildings.
They found nothing under IAEA "seal." This raises the possibility that
the bunkers the agency had sealed prior to the war were broken into,
and the explosives taken, before or during the war, making it nearly
impossible to stop. Indeed, NBC Nightly News reported Monday that NBC
was embedded with the Army’s 101st Airborne when they searched the
site three weeks into the war and confirmed that none of the powerful
explosives were found.
--- End quoted material ---
One other interesting little tidbit:
--- Begin quoted material ---
Remember, Saddam had an interest in explosives like HMX for one
reason: They could have played a role in the revival of his WMD
program. President Bush has removed that possibility once and for all
— and for that, the region and the world are in his debt.
--- End quoted material ---
>>> Funny how Bush is
>>> not commenting on this... any idea why not?
>>
>> If GW Bush commented every time the NYT failed to get it right on a
>> story, he would have no time to do anything else as president. ;-)
>
>Actually the White House has commented ... but they are not really
>answering.
I have no idea what that means.
Now: do you think that GW Bush should really be responding to this
hatchet journalism?
We've been talking a lot about proof, Snit. Which of those 1000
stories that you Googled has any evidence whatsoever that any of those
explosives was there after the US occupation began?
I also heard some interesting commentary about these powders earlier
today on Rush: where the only means of transporting them in mass scals
is something like grain transports. It would be problematic to have
groups of people attempt to smuggle tons of this powder other ways.
Did any of your Google Diving find that?
>> All seriousness aside: the Pentagon has commented in detail on these
>> reports already. It's not the President's job to comment on the
>> mis-reportings of the American Media. He didn't comment on the fake
>> memos that "60 Minutes" reported and defended as accurate, either.
Well? Do you think that GW should have commented on the forged "60
Minutes" documents? Wasn't it much smarter to just wait for the story
to unravel on its own?
Did that whole episode bother you, Snit?
Do you think it should be the role of the President to respond when a
powerful but inherently-untrustable organization launches into a
last-minute smear campaign?
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:38:33 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> His troops were... and he is the one ultimately in charge of where they are
>>>> deployed and how effective they are. The US, under Bush, failed to keep
>>>> secure a large and very dangerous cache of weaponry.
>>>
>>> This is utterly false. Please read the Drudge Report update on this
>>> story today. The weapons were removed before the US Troops ever got
>>> there in 2003.
>>
>> Drudge Report? DRUDGE REPORT? Fuck Christ, are you really that clueless
>> that you cite Drudge Report?
>
>I must say I found it odd that anyone would state that they do not trust the
>NY Times (I can understand that) and then quote Drudge as the sole evidence.
That's consistent. You also told us that you were ignorant of the book
which impeached the credibility of the NYT.
Did you have a chance to go look at the book?
>Especially as one is bringing up the validity of source, to use any one
>source is questionable, but to use a source that is so clearly biased does
>not make any sense to me.
I've cited my source for concluding the NYT is hopelessly biased.
And you failed to explain why the NYT failed for months (!!) to report
on the Al Mada "Oil for Food" spreadsheet documenting the pattern of
bribes by Saddam.
What source do you have for your conclusions about Drudge?
>After all, look at Drudges site... is there any doubt he has a strong bias?
Then you should have no difficulty citing places where Drudge has
manipulated facts!
References?
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
>> The New York Times Fraud is not a small thing. As was the CBS News
>> Fraud about the forged documents.
>>
>> Are the liberals outraged at these iddy biddy teeny weeny factual
>> errors that are creeping up in the media?
>>
>
>The power struggle I see is a rather odd one. Why is it that there
>seems to be a life and death struggle to the presidency? We seem to be
>missing a few facts that has been kept from the public here.
IMHO, not really. The big one is the window for Supreme Court
appointments.
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
>> >His troops were... and he is the one ultimately in charge of where they
>are
>> >deployed and how effective they are. The US, under Bush, failed to keep
>> >secure a large and very dangerous cache of weaponry.
>>
>> This is utterly false. Please read the Drudge Report update on this
>> story today. The weapons were removed before the US Troops ever got
>> there in 2003.
>
>Drudge Report? DRUDGE REPORT? Fuck Christ, are you really that clueless
>that you cite Drudge Report?
That is an incompetent critique of the site.
Don't these liberals have something more competent than insults and
obscenities? What ever happened to tolerance?
And, even if you feel that way, just go to the Washington Post or the
other sources that Drudge cites.
>> There is some ugly revisionism going on at the NYT. The liberal media
>> is in a Last Gasp Effort to try to alter this election.
Do you know how to spell October Surprise?
>> The New York Times Fraud is not a small thing. As was the CBS News
>> Fraud about the forged documents.
>>
>> Are the liberals outraged at these iddy biddy teeny weeny factual
>> errors that are creeping up in the media?
>>
>> --phil
>
>None of which addresses the issue before us, which is the strategic failures
>of this administration in the planning and execution of their war in Iraq.
Compared to what war? WWI? WWII? The Civil War?
How exactly would Senator John Kerry have removed Saddam? Given that
Saddam had bought several seats on the UNSC, how would he ever have
gotten a "world mandate" to remove Saddam?
What additional military forces would actually have gone to Iraq?
France? Germany?
If the Democrats had won the 2000 election, Saddam would still be in
power. What would have happened if Saddam's bribes had allowed all
the sanctions to be removed and he could re-start his WMD programs?
War is ugly. It's always ugly. It would have been ugly if the
Europeans had taken out Hitler in the 1930s. But that ugliness would
have been far less than the ugliness that became knownn as WWII.
Tell us how you know that some far huger mess wouldn't have happened
in Iraq. Make us certain that you are right. Senator John Kerry has
never ever done that!
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
>Phil Earnhardt <p...@dim.com> wrote in message news:<86prn0dck93qdso25...@4ax.com>...
>> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:38:33 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >His troops were... and he is the one ultimately in charge of where they are
>> >deployed and how effective they are. The US, under Bush, failed to keep
>> >secure a large and very dangerous cache of weaponry.
>>
>> This is utterly false. Please read the Drudge Report update on this
>> story today. The weapons were removed before the US Troops ever got
>> there in 2003.
>
>That is just flat out wrong. The Iraqis themselves say the explosives
>were removed after April, 2003, which, you will recall, was *after*
>the invasion.
References?
>> There is some ugly revisionism going on at the NYT. The liberal media
>> is in a Last Gasp Effort to try to alter this election.
>
>Umm, no, it is the conservatives and the Republicans that are doing
>the revisionism.
References?
>> > While claiming to work
>> >to keep weapons out of the hands of the "evil doers", Bush seems to have
>> >essentially handed the "evil doers" a large amount of weapons. This is not
>> >a small thing.
>>
>> The New York Times Fraud is not a small thing. As was the CBS News
>> Fraud about the forged documents.
>
>Sure, yell about the sources when you can't actually refute the story.
Of course I can. CBS themselves apologized for the forged documents
that they represented as true. Did you miss that story?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644546.shtml
That's what I mean when I ask for references.
>> Are the liberals outraged at these iddy biddy teeny weeny factual
>> errors that are creeping up in the media?
>
>How about the conservatives being outraged about the lies from the
>Bush campaign.
References?
> Such as the mischaracterization of Kerry's health care
>plan
It's a huge regluatory nightmare.
And I have a fundamental question I have yet to hear anyone answer:
If Kerry's plan is poor compared to what private employers provide,
how long will it take before people on that plan start complaining
about "Second-class medical care" and demand moer?
If Kerry's plan is comparable to what private employers provide, why
will private employers keep offering this benefit? Why not just
improve the bottom line by dropping their health care?
If Kerry is elected, this is going to be a huge program, and it will
only get larger as private health-care only becomes an afterthought.
>, The taking out of context of Kerry's statements which make it
>look as if he wasn't changed by 9/11 when he actually very concerned
>about terrorism *before* 9/11 (unlike the Bushies).
I'm more interested in Kerry's actions. Like how he voted against $6B
of intelligence funding after the first terrorist attack on the WTC.
Or how Kerry voted against the Gulf War -- how he thought that
diplomacy would somehow have Saddam remove himself from Kuwait.
> Or, the total lack
>of responsibility in the administration. People screw up left and
>right, and no one takes any responsibilty, or suffers any
>consequences.
I have no idea what that means.
References?
> Rumsfeld not putting enough troops in Iraq,
That's disinformation by the Kerry campaign. Just like his
fear-mongering about a draft -- based on legislation introduced by
Democrats in January of 2003. Democrats who didn't even vote for their
own legislation (!) when it was put up for a vote. What a bunch of
manipulative fear-mongerers!
> the bad
>intelligence (or, lies, take your choice) leading up to the war in
>Iraq
That's a strategic failure of intelligence -- a failure over years. A
failure that includes Bush Sr. and WJ Clinton.
>, misleading Congress on the cost of the Medicare drug plan, etc.
>Take your choice. Why aren't you outraged about all the lies and
>deception of this adminsitration?
What's outrageous is that you characterize them as lies.
What's outrageous is that you don't call Kerry a liar when he reported
on the danger of WMDs in Iraq -- using that same intelligence data.
What's outrageous about the Democrats is that I have yet to see a
single on who can reconcile Kerry's outrageous statements from his
book "The New Soldier" -- how they all attempt to ignore the book. How
the Democratic Legal Eagles have done everything they can to try to
burn that book.
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
>Because Phil has his head stuffed straight up his ass.
John: political debate is fine. Scatological one-liners with no intent
but to insult have no place in the discussion. And they represent your
party's doctrines of toleance and diversity quite poorly.
If you feel you must hurl one-liner insults, please move it to e-mail.
Thank you!
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
>> I would have fondly hoped that the NYT had researched their story far
>> more conclusively before they published it. A story with fundamental
>> facts wrong is always bad, but publishing such a politically charged
>> story a week before the election that happens to be wrong should be
>> criminal.
>
>It certainly should be reason to question the news paper...
You don't have to wait for anything. Just look at the NYT's failure to
research/report about the "Oil for Food" theft scandal! Look at how
damn long it took them to write *anything* about the Al Mada "Food for
Oil" scandal! The story was broken in the US by the WSJ on 2/9/2004.
You can see that story at
Or search groups.google.com for
author:p...@dim.com "saddam's global payroll"
and go to the first articu
>I would like to
>see what makes this current news... there were recent dates in what they
>commented on - but I would have to dig back through the info I posted.
OK. Note: the thoroughly-discredited "60 Minutes" had intended to run
with the story about the stockpiles on this coming Sunday -- 36 hours
before the polls opened! They were trying to sit on this story at a
point in time before it could be verified -- or thoroughly reputed.
Hasn't that organization already done enough damage in this campaign?
>> It demonstrates yet another UN Directive that Saddam failed to follow.
>> He knew that he had the proper people bribed to block UNSC approval
>> for an invasion of Iraq.
>>
>> Also: this blows up the title of your thread: there was no loss of 350
>> tons from the stockpiles since the US occupied Iraq.
>
>It was the title of the article...
So both the content and the title of the article were fundamentally
flawed, then.
>> When do you think we'll see the retraction from the NYT?
>
>Nov. 3. :)
Never. And they will never apologize for their failure to report about
the "Oil for Food" scandal for months after the WSJ had broken the
story.
If nothing else, you should begin to get an appreciation for how dirty
the NYT is...
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
What exactly are you basing that conclusion on, "John"?
References?
---phil
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
Then you should look at the CNN website reporting on the NBC embedded
reporters who were with the unit that was looking for these weapons
stashes:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.explosives/index.html
-- Begin quoted material --
NBC News reported that on April 10, 2003, its crew was embedded with
the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division when troops arrived at the Al
Qaqaa storage facility south of Baghdad.
While the troops found large stockpiles of conventional explosives,
they did not find HMX or RDX, the types of powerful explosives that
reportedly went missing, according to NBC.
-- End quoted material --
>Note that the story, while in an admittedly biased site, contains
>references from mainstream media sources. Sorry, but the
>administration is lying.
We shall see. This is the October Surprise. It is unfortunate for CBS
News that they weren't allowed to wait to report this story on Sunday.
Unfortunately, there is plenty of time between now and Tuesday to sort
this puppy out.
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
<fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
>> My personal favorite (well after this book was published): over the
>> last year: in February, the Wall Street Journal broke the story in the
>> US about the Al Mada spreadsheet documenting the recepients of bribes
>> from the "Oil for Food" program. They presented a well-researched
>> detailed story.
>>
>> Did you read it at the time?
>
>Gee, Phil... Snit actually asked a question that was relevant to what he
>was discussing for a change. Was there a particular reason that you
>showed your hypocritical colors and avoided it:)
You are right: Snit ignored the question; I asked it again.
If he continues to ignore it, his failure to respond might become an
issue.
You failed to answer my questions in at least a half-dozen postings
before I concluded that you had no interest whatsoever in answering
them.
For now, I'll give Snit the benefit of the doubt.
Do you understand the difference?
>> All seriousness aside: the Pentagon has commented in detail on these
>> reports already. It's not the President's job to comment on the
>> mis-reportings of the American Media. He didn't comment on the fake
>> memos that "60 Minutes" reported and defended as accurate, either.
>
>"All seriousness aside"?? Glue good today...
Steve: please stop immediately in your allegations that I am using
substances illegally.
I don't know how to say it any more plainly than that.
Thanks!
--phil
John
The latest news is that the NBC story last night was FALSE. The
embedded coorespondent and troops did indeed stop for only a few minutes
at the site but THEY DID NOT CONDUCT A SEARCH and left a short time later.
GreyCloud
Snit wrote:
>>To be used as detonators for nukes.
>
>
> That is how I read the claim of "triggering"... did you have another
> understanding of the claim / use of the word "triggering".
>
Some people would think that just exploding high explosives near a nuke
would trigger a nuclear detonation. A common myth. But in this
instance, in Iraq, where are the nukes to be made with this trigger?
That would imply WMDs and we all know that they aren't there, right?
I'd suspect that the triggers went to Iran a long time ago, before our
troops entered bagdad.
From what I've heard today, the missing high explosives were gone
before we even got there. Beware of the credibility of the NYT. The
question now stands: Do we know for sure if the explosives were gone
before we got there? It seems to me that the NYT fabricated another
pre-election lie.
GreyCloud
Warchild wrote:
>>And how come people are going to blame Bush for the theft, if it was
>>indeed theft? He wasn't there guarding it.
>
>
> No one was there guarding it. Before the war it was being monitored by UN
> weapons inspectors, after the war - nada. Yes Bush is responsible, because
> no contingency was made for securing the various inspection sites.
>
According to NBC, these high explosives were gone before we even entered
bagdad. I'd be wary of anything the NYT reports. After all, they have
been caught before in their fabrications.
Phil Earnhardt
>>>>>> But Pentagon officials said yesterday that Iraq had already
>>>>>>admitted to breaking the IAEA seals and moving tons of the explosives
>>>>>
>>>>>>from the Al Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad, before U.N. inspectors
>>>>>
>>>>>>re-entered the country in 2002. Officials said the rest of the
>>>>>>explosives stockpiles may have been removed and hidden before the
>>>>>>arrival of American troops.
>>>>>
>>>Bush was so clueless that HE DIDN"T KNOW FOR 18 MONTHS THAT 750,000
>>>pounds of high explosives were missing.
>>
>>
>> What exactly are you basing that conclusion on, "John"?
>>
>> References?
>
>The latest news is that the NBC story last night was FALSE.
Does the word
"References?"
mean anything to you, "John"?
...or did the skies part and just tell you this?
--phil
Snit
p9gtn0l7dhcm7t334...@4ax.com on 10/26/04 2:30 PM:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:07:07 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>>>> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:38:33 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> His troops were... and he is the one ultimately in charge of where they
>>>>> are
>>>>> deployed and how effective they are. The US, under Bush, failed to keep
>>>>> secure a large and very dangerous cache of weaponry.
>>>>
>>>> This is utterly false. Please read the Drudge Report update on this
>>>> story today. The weapons were removed before the US Troops ever got
>>>> there in 2003.
>>>
>>> Drudge Report? DRUDGE REPORT? Fuck Christ, are you really that clueless
>>> that you cite Drudge Report?
>>
>> I must say I found it odd that anyone would state that they do not trust the
>> NY Times (I can understand that) and then quote Drudge as the sole evidence.
>
> That's consistent. You also told us that you were ignorant of the book
> which impeached the credibility of the NYT.
>
> Did you have a chance to go look at the book?
No. Nor do I have plans to. Have you read The Lexus and the Olive Tree? I
read it and liked at least parts of it.
>
>> Especially as one is bringing up the validity of source, to use any one
>> source is questionable, but to use a source that is so clearly biased does
>> not make any sense to me.
>
> I've cited my source for concluding the NYT is hopelessly biased.
>
> And you failed to explain why the NYT failed for months (!!) to report
> on the Al Mada "Oil for Food" spreadsheet documenting the pattern of
> bribes by Saddam.
it is not on topic of the Bush administration letting tons of explosives go
missing in Iraq. Not sure why you are looking to change the topic.
>
> What source do you have for your conclusions about Drudge?
Other than common sense after reading his web page, here is one source:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Matt_Drudge#Errors_and_Bias_at_the_Report
----- Start Quotes -----
Rumors and articles in the Report are occasionally revealed to be completely
wrong, and Drudge is frequently accused of biased reporting. Shortly before
the announcement that John Kerry had selected John Edwards as his running
mate in July 2004, the Report claimed that U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton would
be selected. Whereas the New York Post was castigated for incorrectly
reporting that Kerry chose as his running mate U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt, the
Report escaped criticism. The Report was also a source of more sensational
rumors about the presidential candidate, alleging, in February 2004, that
John Kerry had an affair with a young intern named Alexandra Polier. The
woman, who in fact was never an intern for Kerry, denied the claim, and the
rumor has now been thoroughly repudiated.
Despite instances of unreliability, the Drudge Report profits from the
nature of its electronic medium. Because the Drudge Report is published
electronically, and not in print, such inaccuracies and errors are often
forgotten.
Though Drudge is often defended on the grounds that he writes very few
articles, generally only supplying links to the work of others, his
editorializing frequently occurs in the form of the juxtaposition of a
headline with an unrelated image. On Wednesday, July 28, 2004, the Report
featured the headline: "Edwards to Call Kerry 'Decisive, Strong.'" Above
this headline was a picture of a young woman in a tight tank top, featuring
the logo "John Edwards is Hot."
----- End Quotes -----
>
>> After all, look at Drudges site... is there any doubt he has a strong bias?
>
> Then you should have no difficulty citing places where Drudge has
> manipulated facts!
Nope.
>
> References?
Any questions?
Snit
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:23:20 GMT, Steve Carroll
> <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
>
>>> My personal favorite (well after this book was published): over the
>>> last year: in February, the Wall Street Journal broke the story in the
>>> US about the Al Mada spreadsheet documenting the recepients of bribes
>>> from the "Oil for Food" program. They presented a well-researched
>>> detailed story.
>>>
>>> Did you read it at the time?
>>
>> Gee, Phil... Snit actually asked a question that was relevant to what he
>> was discussing for a change. Was there a particular reason that you
>> showed your hypocritical colors and avoided it:)
>
> You are right: Snit ignored the question; I asked it again.
>
> If he continues to ignore it, his failure to respond might become an
> issue.
>
> You failed to answer my questions in at least a half-dozen postings
> before I concluded that you had no interest whatsoever in answering
> them.
The answer: no, I did not read it at the time, nor have I since.
>
> For now, I'll give Snit the benefit of the doubt.
I do not think you like my answer, but I do generally answer questions if
they are asked in a reasonable way. I do want to point out, however, that
you made claims about the explosives in Iraq that seem to be incorrect - it
does seem that the US blew it by letting the weapons "escape".
>
> Do you understand the difference?
>
>>> All seriousness aside: the Pentagon has commented in detail on these
>>> reports already. It's not the President's job to comment on the
>>> mis-reportings of the American Media. He didn't comment on the fake
>>> memos that "60 Minutes" reported and defended as accurate, either.
>>
>> "All seriousness aside"?? Glue good today...
>
> Steve: please stop immediately in your allegations that I am using
> substances illegally.
>
> I don't know how to say it any more plainly than that.
>
> Thanks!
Steve sinks to such allegations when he has been pushed into a corner and
knows he has been caught lying.
Snit
>
>
> Snit wrote:
>
>>> To be used as detonators for nukes.
>>
>>
>> That is how I read the claim of "triggering"... did you have another
>> understanding of the claim / use of the word "triggering".
>>
>
> Some people would think that just exploding high explosives near a nuke
> would trigger a nuclear detonation.
I am not one of those people. :)
> A common myth. But in this instance, in Iraq, where are the nukes to be made
> with this trigger? That would imply WMDs and we all know that they aren't
> there, right?
Not in Iraq... but they could be elsewhere... wherever the explosives now
are.
From what I understand, they were being guarded by the UN. Had it not been
for the actions of Bush, they would not have been lost.
> Beware of the credibility of the NYT. The question now stands: Do we know
> for sure if the explosives were gone before we got there? It seems to me that
> the NYT fabricated another pre-election lie.
Not sure it matters when Bush allowed the weapons to be stolen... unless it
can be shown that they were stolen while under the UN watch, it would seem
it was under Bush's watch.
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
>> If he continues to ignore it, his failure to respond might become an
>> issue.
>>
>> You failed to answer my questions in at least a half-dozen postings
>> before I concluded that you had no interest whatsoever in answering
>> them.
>
>The answer: no, I did not read it at the time, nor have I since.
>>
>> For now, I'll give Snit the benefit of the doubt.
>
>I do not think you like my answer, but I do generally answer questions if
>they are asked in a reasonable way.
The questions were about the spreadsheet first published by Al Mada --
the "smoking gun" about the bribes in the "Oil for Food" program.
I asked why the NYT failed to cover that story for months (!) after it
was broken in the US by the WSJ.
The question goes to the fundamental credibility of the NYT: how any
newspaper claiming to cover "all the news that's fit to print" could
ignore this vital story.
> I do want to point out, however, that
>you made claims about the explosives in Iraq that seem to be incorrect - it
>does seem that the US blew it by letting the weapons "escape".
Then you should post references about that. But you should not ignore
the fundamental questions about the gross partiality of the NYT.
I just found an interesting ditty about the fitness of those
stockpiles for IEDs -- or the lack thereof. I'll post that separately.
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
>>> I must say I found it odd that anyone would state that they do not trust the
>>> NY Times (I can understand that) and then quote Drudge as the sole evidence.
>>
>> That's consistent. You also told us that you were ignorant of the book
>> which impeached the credibility of the NYT.
>>
>> Did you have a chance to go look at the book?
>
>No. Nor do I have plans to. Have you read The Lexus and the Olive Tree? I
>read it and liked at least parts of it.
I haven't. The grim analysis of the NYT is pertinent to this
discussion. Is your book pertinent wo this thread?
>>> Especially as one is bringing up the validity of source, to use any one
>>> source is questionable, but to use a source that is so clearly biased does
>>> not make any sense to me.
>>
>> I've cited my source for concluding the NYT is hopelessly biased.
>>
>> And you failed to explain why the NYT failed for months (!!) to report
>> on the Al Mada "Oil for Food" spreadsheet documenting the pattern of
>> bribes by Saddam.
>
>it is not on topic of the Bush administration letting tons of explosives go
>missing in Iraq.
The failure of the NYT to publish anything about this story for months
(!) after the WSJ broke it in the US is an indication that they have
no interest at all in presenting "all the news that's fit to print".
They have an interest in presenting the news that supports their
agenda.
As such, you should consider any story published in the NYT with huge
skepticism.
> Not sure why you are looking to change the topic.
You were questioning the credibility of The Drudge Report as a source.
I asked you what you based that on; you didn't answer.
OTOH, the NYT has proven itself as a disreputable source of impartial
news.
In short: I was asking you to back up your claim: to explain why you
thought we should not trust Drudge. I was looking for facts rather
than conjecture.
What have you got?
>>
>> What source do you have for your conclusions about Drudge?
>
>Other than common sense after reading his web page, here is one source:
>
>http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Matt_Drudge#Errors_and_Bias_at_the_Report
>
>OR http://snipurl.com/a2y0
>
>----- Start Quotes -----
>
>Rumors and articles in the Report are occasionally revealed to be completely
>wrong, and Drudge is frequently accused of biased reporting.
Doesn't sound like a huge damnation of the site. I see no attempt of
the critic to get Drudge's feedback on that.
Again: I'd like to see you reconcile this against the NYT's
categorical failure to report on the Al Mada story for months (!)
after a competitor had reported on it. That's a collassal failure for
that news-gathering organization.
>>> After all, look at Drudges site... is there any doubt he has a strong bias?
>>
>> Then you should have no difficulty citing places where Drudge has
>> manipulated facts!
>
>Nope.
>>
>> References?
>
>Any questions?
Just a request to reconcile the failure of the NYT -- as described
above.
Thanks!
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
>http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048
>[SNIP]
An interesting article was posted in the National Review about those
stockpiles, ease in moving them, and what they could and couldn't be
easily used for:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp
-- Begin quoted material --
LOTS MORE INFO ABOUT HDX [10/26 11:42 AM]
Kerry Spot reader Duane writes in:
A key point is that this is not dense stuff, where you can get a lot
of weight into a small vehicle. If this was really in its raw form, it
is white powder, like cornstarch or a light powdered sugar (NOT
granulated sugar). Blow on it and it flies in the breeze- the stories
I've seen haven't said much about what form it was in, but you would
want it to be relatively raw so you could form it into main charges
for artillery, etc. They don't pour granules into shells, it is mixed
with binders and melted sonit will take a shape. You can't be a nice
terrorist, happen by, stick some in your pocket, and run away while
the US Army isn't looking- it isn't "plastic" (like, say, comp C4,
which is a plastic matrix impregnated with HE, thus has a lot of
filler to make it shapeable). The kinds of trucks you would need to
haul it are like grain hoppers, and lots of them. You can't stack it
on pallets.
That is why the nonsense about vandals running off with the stuff is
just that — nonsense.
The issue, as always with explosives, is not HE- it is how to get the
stuff to blow up. You can hit compressed RDX or HMX with a hammer and
not set it off. And you can properly detonate ammonium nitrate
fertilizer, as was done at the Oklahoma City Federal building by
McVeigh et al, and have a disaster. You can also detonate wheat dust
in a rural grain elevator and re-create the bombing of the African
embassies.
The reason that old artillery ammunition is desired for creation of
IEDs is not that it has high explosive in it, it is because those
rounds have fuzes, lead cups, and boosters- the full fire train needed
to make HE go "boom". Remember your fireplace- you need to start with
a match, then crumpled newspaper, add twigs when they are roaring
effectively, then sticks, then small branches, etc. Trying to do
something useful with pure HMX or RDX is like trying to flick your BIC
lighter at a 20 pound pure oak log. It will be a long time before you
warm up. When I was waling around Holston Army Ammunition Plant one
time, where the US manufactured its RDX and HMX, there were cloth
laundry carts all over the place full of white powder that looked and
felt like conrstarch. I wasn't in the least worried that if I tripped
and fell against the cart I would be blown up.
The only way you make those 40 trucks crammed full of HE blow up is
to set off an explosion near them. The Saddam drivers carrying them
all to Syria and elsewhere in mid-March were probably smoking as they
drove, with relative safety. Raw HE is easy to find- what is a
challenge is making it controllably useful.
-- End quoted material --
--phil
Snit
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:01:46 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>>> If he continues to ignore it, his failure to respond might become an
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> You failed to answer my questions in at least a half-dozen postings
>>> before I concluded that you had no interest whatsoever in answering
>>> them.
>>
>> The answer: no, I did not read it at the time, nor have I since.
>>>
>>> For now, I'll give Snit the benefit of the doubt.
>>
>> I do not think you like my answer, but I do generally answer questions if
>> they are asked in a reasonable way.
>
> The questions were about the spreadsheet first published by Al Mada --
> the "smoking gun" about the bribes in the "Oil for Food" program.
Right... and they were not on topic about the Iraqi explosives lost from the
actions of Bush.
>
> I asked why the NYT failed to cover that story for months (!) after it
> was broken in the US by the WSJ.
How is that related to the tons of explosives that the Bush administration
allowed to get lost?
>
> The question goes to the fundamental credibility of the NYT: how any
> newspaper claiming to cover "all the news that's fit to print" could
> ignore this vital story.
If you do not trust the NYT, then don't. But that does not answer the
questions about the tons of explosives that the Bush administration allowed
to get lost.
>
>> I do want to point out, however, that
>> you made claims about the explosives in Iraq that seem to be incorrect - it
>> does seem that the US blew it by letting the weapons "escape".
>
> Then you should post references about that. But you should not ignore
> the fundamental questions about the gross partiality of the NYT.
Do you know the name of the logical fallacy where you attempt to refute
information based on the source?
In any case, the NYT is not the only one reporting the story.
Look at the Associated Press:
The first U.S. military unit to reach the Al-Qaqaa military installation
after the fall of Baghdad did not have orders to search for the nearly
400 tons of explosives that are missing from the site, the unit
spokesman said Tuesday.
When troops from the 101st Airborne Division's 2nd Brigade arrived at
the Al-Qaqaa base a day or so after coalition troops seized Baghdad on
April 9, 2003, there were already looters throughout the facility, Lt.
Col. Fred Wellman, deputy public affairs officer for the unit, told The
Associated Press.
Even VP Cheney
Vice President Dick Cheney says 400-thousand tons of explosives
would be in Saddam Hussein's hands if the U-S had not invaded Iraq.
In other words, if the US had not invaded Iraq, we would know where these
weapons were. This is not coming from some news paper that may or may not
be pushing some ant-Bush agenda, this is coming from Cheney - had the US not
invaded Iraq, we would know where those weapons were. Now we do not.
Do you doubt the reports that:
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei reported the
disappearance to the U.N. Security Council on Monday, two weeks after he
said Iraq told the nuclear agency that the explosives had vanished from
the former Iraqi military installation as a result of "theft and looting
... due to lack of security."
Seems Bush should have taken better care to reduce the chance of weapons
getting into unknown hands.
> I just found an interesting ditty about the fitness of those
> stockpiles for IEDs -- or the lack thereof. I'll post that separately.
Thank you. If there is evidence to show that Bush an co. were not
responsible for the poor security of those weapons I would like to see it.
Snit
Clearly *someone* thought the stuff might be useful. Any idea who?
Snit
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:58:23 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>>>> I must say I found it odd that anyone would state that they do not trust
>>>> the
>>>> NY Times (I can understand that) and then quote Drudge as the sole
>>>> evidence.
>>>
>>> That's consistent. You also told us that you were ignorant of the book
>>> which impeached the credibility of the NYT.
>>>
>>> Did you have a chance to go look at the book?
>>
>> No. Nor do I have plans to. Have you read The Lexus and the Olive Tree? I
>> read it and liked at least parts of it.
>
> I haven't. The grim analysis of the NYT is pertinent to this
> discussion. Is your book pertinent wo this thread?
Well, it talks about information flow... so, sure... as much as attacking
the NYT is for their reporting of Bush losing tons of explosives... the real
question is about Bush and co. losing the explosives, not about the NYT.
Now if there was no additional evidence, and only the NYT was making this
claim, *then* the reputation or bias of the NYT might matter.
>
>>>> Especially as one is bringing up the validity of source, to use any one
>>>> source is questionable, but to use a source that is so clearly biased does
>>>> not make any sense to me.
>>>
>>> I've cited my source for concluding the NYT is hopelessly biased.
>>>
>>> And you failed to explain why the NYT failed for months (!!) to report
>>> on the Al Mada "Oil for Food" spreadsheet documenting the pattern of
>>> bribes by Saddam.
>>
>> it is not on topic of the Bush administration letting tons of explosives go
>> missing in Iraq.
>
> The failure of the NYT to publish anything about this story for months
> (!) after the WSJ broke it in the US is an indication that they have
> no interest at all in presenting "all the news that's fit to print".
> They have an interest in presenting the news that supports their
> agenda.
That is not on topic of the Bush administration letting tons of explosives
go missing in Iraq.
>
> As such, you should consider any story published in the NYT with huge
> skepticism.
Then look at the many other sources. The AP or even VP Cheney, for example
- even the VP has stated that had Bush not attacked Iraq, we would know
where the weapons would be. I would prefer them in a known location than in
the hands of the unknown.
>
>> Not sure why you are looking to change the topic.
>
> You were questioning the credibility of The Drudge Report as a source.
> I asked you what you based that on; you didn't answer.
Look below.
>
> OTOH, the NYT has proven itself as a disreputable source of impartial
> news.
What percent of their stories are incorrect and how does that compare to
other large papers?
>
> In short: I was asking you to back up your claim: to explain why you
> thought we should not trust Drudge. I was looking for facts rather
> than conjecture.
>
> What have you got?
Look below. Several examples of incorrect claims by Drudge.
>>>
>>> What source do you have for your conclusions about Drudge?
>>
>> Other than common sense after reading his web page, here is one source:
>>
>> http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Matt_Drudge#Errors_and_Bias_at_the_Report
>>
>> OR http://snipurl.com/a2y0
>>
>> ----- Start Quotes -----
>>
>> Rumors and articles in the Report are occasionally revealed to be completely
>> wrong, and Drudge is frequently accused of biased reporting.
>
> Doesn't sound like a huge damnation of the site. I see no attempt of
> the critic to get Drudge's feedback on that.
Tsk Tsk. You snipped away other comments and did not look at the page in
question.
Error 1: Shortly before the announcement that John Kerry had selected John
Edwards as his running mate in July 2004, the Report claimed that U.S. Sen.
Hillary Clinton would be selected. Whereas the New York Post was castigated
for incorrectly reporting that Kerry chose as his running mate U.S. Rep.
Dick Gephardt, the Report escaped criticism.
Error 2: The Report was also a source of more sensational rumors about the
presidential candidate, alleging, in February 2004, that John Kerry had an
affair with a young intern named Alexandra Polier. The woman, who in fact
was never an intern for Kerry, denied the claim, and the rumor has now been
thoroughly repudiated.
I am sure we could find more.
>
> Again: I'd like to see you reconcile this against the NYT's
> categorical failure to report on the Al Mada story for months (!)
> after a competitor had reported on it. That's a collassal failure for
> that news-gathering organization.
I have not looked into the NYT reporting of that story.
That story, and the NYT in general, however, are not connected to the Bush
administration losing tons of explosives in Iraq.
Care to comment on that?
>
>>>> After all, look at Drudges site... is there any doubt he has a strong bias?
>>>
>>> Then you should have no difficulty citing places where Drudge has
>>> manipulated facts!
>>
>> Nope.
>>>
>>> References?
>>
>> Any questions?
>
> Just a request to reconcile the failure of the NYT -- as described
> above.
>
> Thanks!
I have no information on that claim against the NYT. On that claim against
the NYT, I admit ignorance. Even if it turns out that the NYT is no better
than the Nat'l Enquirer, that does not explain away the Bush administration
losing so many tons of weapons.
David Fritzinger
Gee, you cut my material without marking the cut, and inserted your
own, making it look as if I had nothing to back up what I was saying.
Now, why would you be so dishonest as to do that?
However, we also have this from the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/10/26/explosives_were_looted_after_iraq_invasion/
And, I quote:
UN nuclear official cites security lapse
By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | October 26, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Iraqi officials reported that thieves looted 377 tons of
powerful explosives from an unguarded site after the US-led invasion
last year, the top UN nuclear official said yesterday. And a former
weapons inspector said he had counted about 100 other unguarded
weapons sites that may have been stripped of munitions for use in the
wave of attacks against US soldiers and Iraqi civilians.
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.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
disclosed the security lapse to the UN Security Council yesterday
after receiving a letter from the Iraqi Ministry of Science and
Technology earlier this month that informed him of the loss and blamed
it on ''theft and looting of governmental installations due to lack of
security."
>
>
> >Note that the story, while in an admittedly biased site, contains
> >references from mainstream media sources. Sorry, but the
> >administration is lying.
>
> We shall see. This is the October Surprise. It is unfortunate for CBS
> News that they weren't allowed to wait to report this story on Sunday.
And, it is too bad for the Bushies that this story shows yet another
example of the sheer, unmitigated incompetence of this administration.
>
> Unfortunately, there is plenty of time between now and Tuesday to sort
> this puppy out.
Yup, and it don't look good for the Bushies. Meaning, it does look
better for the American People.
--
Dave Fritzinger
>
> --phil
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
Silly rabbit. That would be whoever ordered those smoking drivers to
ship the material to Syria or elsewhere -- before the war ever
started.
These materials are useful for a manufacturing operation. It's far
more difficult for a terrorist to *improvise* using these raw exploive
materials. That's what begs the question about Kerry's new commercial:
how in God's name can he know these materials could possibly have used
by terrorists to created IEDs?
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
>>> I do not think you like my answer, but I do generally answer questions if
>>> they are asked in a reasonable way.
>>
>> The questions were about the spreadsheet first published by Al Mada --
>> the "smoking gun" about the bribes in the "Oil for Food" program.
>
>Right... and they were not on topic about the Iraqi explosives lost from the
>actions of Bush.
*You* were the one who questioned the reliability of the Drudge Report
as compared to the NYT.
I pointed out that the NYT has had a complete breakdown in reporting
news important to the world: they failed to report about the Al Mada
"Smoking Gun" for months (!) after the story was broken by someone
else.
>> I asked why the NYT failed to cover that story for months (!) after it
>> was broken in the US by the WSJ.
>
>How is that related to the tons of explosives that the Bush administration
>allowed to get lost?
Since the source -- or, at least, one principal source -- of this
story is the NYT, its correctness is seriously in doubt. After all,
the NYT failed to report on the Al Mada spreadsheet for months (!)
after the story was broken by the WSJ in the US.
>> The question goes to the fundamental credibility of the NYT: how any
>> newspaper claiming to cover "all the news that's fit to print" could
>> ignore this vital story.
>
>If you do not trust the NYT, then don't.
Then please take your own advice! Find some more objective source than
the NTY!
> But that does not answer the
>questions about the tons of explosives that the Bush administration allowed
>to get lost.
You are still taking the NYT story on face value. Why are you doing
that?
>>
>>> I do want to point out, however, that
>>> you made claims about the explosives in Iraq that seem to be incorrect - it
>>> does seem that the US blew it by letting the weapons "escape".
>>
>> Then you should post references about that. But you should not ignore
>> the fundamental questions about the gross partiality of the NYT.
>
>Do you know the name of the logical fallacy where you attempt to refute
>information based on the source?
No.
Is there a name for a logical fallacy where you attempt to take
stories from a dubious source as the gospel source?
>In any case, the NYT is not the only one reporting the story.
>
>Look at the Associated Press:
>
> http://snipurl.com/a2z2
The thing the story fails to inform: how could one take that raw
explosive and make an IED? See my separate posting about that.
>Even VP Cheney
>
> Vice President Dick Cheney says 400-thousand tons of explosives
> would be in Saddam Hussein's hands if the U-S had not invaded Iraq.
It points to a major failing of Kerry: he can't describe how he
possibly would have gotten UNSC consensus to remove Saddam from power.
This goes full circle to the Al Mada question: given the strong
evidence that UNSC seats had been corrupted by Saddam, how would there
ever be a UNSC vote to agree to the election?
>In other words, if the US had not invaded Iraq, we would know where these
>weapons were. This is not coming from some news paper that may or may not
>be pushing some ant-Bush agenda, this is coming from Cheney - had the US not
>invaded Iraq, we would know where those weapons were. Now we do not.
This is a bizzare rhetorical argument. Cheney was simply pointing out
that Kerry has never ever told us how he would have gotten Saddam
removed from power.
Could you paint a credible hypothetical how this was going to happen?
No, I didn't think so!
>Do you doubt the reports that:
>
> International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei reported the
> disappearance to the U.N. Security Council on Monday, two weeks after he
> said Iraq told the nuclear agency that the explosives had vanished from
> the former Iraqi military installation as a result of "theft and looting
> ... due to lack of security."
Yes. Based on the methods that one would have to move these
explosives, it's highly unlikely that they could be moved without
detection in the past 2 weeks.
The only likelihood is that they were removed before the war ever
started.
>Seems Bush should have taken better care to reduce the chance of weapons
>getting into unknown hands.
It seems that Kerry is making an awful stretch to claim that these raw
explosives have been used by anyone to make anything!
>> I just found an interesting ditty about the fitness of those
>> stockpiles for IEDs -- or the lack thereof. I'll post that separately.
>
>Thank you. If there is evidence to show that Bush an co. were not
>responsible for the poor security of those weapons I would like to see it.
It gives you some insignt into these materials -- and how the
allegations of Kerry and the NYT are highly doubtful.
But that doesn't stop Kerry from making a new televison commercial
about this!
The person who admitted to committing War Crimes in a congressional
hearing is now going off half-cocked again!
--phil
Snit
I assume you mean after the US arranged for the weapons to be unguarded...
or do you mean before that even, when the UN was in charge of them?
>
> These materials are useful for a manufacturing operation. It's far
> more difficult for a terrorist to *improvise* using these raw exploive
> materials. That's what begs the question about Kerry's new commercial:
> how in God's name can he know these materials could possibly have used
> by terrorists to created IEDs?
Do you doubt that such weapons could *possibly* be used in any number of
way?
Snit
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:15:00 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>>>> I do not think you like my answer, but I do generally answer questions if
>>>> they are asked in a reasonable way.
>>>
>>> The questions were about the spreadsheet first published by Al Mada --
>>> the "smoking gun" about the bribes in the "Oil for Food" program.
>>
>> Right... and they were not on topic about the Iraqi explosives lost from the
>> actions of Bush.
>
> *You* were the one who questioned the reliability of the Drudge Report
> as compared to the NYT.
I mentioned a report that happened to be on the NYT. You started focusing
on your lack of trust for the NYT, and used, as part of your evidence the
Drudge Report.
I used to responses:
- the Drudge report is not exactly an unbiased source
- in any case, we should use multiple sources. I provided them.
>
> I pointed out that the NYT has had a complete breakdown in reporting
> news important to the world: they failed to report about the Al Mada
> "Smoking Gun" for months (!) after the story was broken by someone
> else.
Ok. You pointed it out and I have not argued with it, and even stated I
have no knowledge of it. I do not see it as being relevant to the missing
explosives.
>
>>> I asked why the NYT failed to cover that story for months (!) after it
>>> was broken in the US by the WSJ.
>>
>> How is that related to the tons of explosives that the Bush administration
>> allowed to get lost?
>
> Since the source -- or, at least, one principal source -- of this
> story is the NYT, its correctness is seriously in doubt. After all,
> the NYT failed to report on the Al Mada spreadsheet for months (!)
> after the story was broken by the WSJ in the US.
You keep running to that story as though it were related. I do not see the
connection.
>
>>> The question goes to the fundamental credibility of the NYT: how any
>>> newspaper claiming to cover "all the news that's fit to print" could
>>> ignore this vital story.
>>
>> If you do not trust the NYT, then don't.
>
> Then please take your own advice! Find some more objective source than
> the NTY!
I have. I have shown you many sources.
>
>> But that does not answer the
>> questions about the tons of explosives that the Bush administration allowed
>> to get lost.
>
> You are still taking the NYT story on face value. Why are you doing
> that?
I am looking at many more sources - some of which I have shared with you.
Why insist this only comes from the NYT? What about the AP? What about VP
Cheney! I quoted both of them, among others.
>>>
>>>> I do want to point out, however, that
>>>> you made claims about the explosives in Iraq that seem to be incorrect - it
>>>> does seem that the US blew it by letting the weapons "escape".
>>>
>>> Then you should post references about that. But you should not ignore
>>> the fundamental questions about the gross partiality of the NYT.
>>
>> Do you know the name of the logical fallacy where you attempt to refute
>> information based on the source?
>
> No.
You have used the term yourself.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem
----- Start Quotes -----
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there
are two varieties.
The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and
justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then
you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem.
----- End Quotes -----
>
> Is there a name for a logical fallacy where you attempt to take
> stories from a dubious source as the gospel source?
Not that I know of. Why do you ask? Keep in mind that I have looked at
many sources for my information, including VP Cheney.
>
>> In any case, the NYT is not the only one reporting the story.
>>
>> Look at the Associated Press:
>>
>> http://snipurl.com/a2z2
>
> The thing the story fails to inform: how could one take that raw
> explosive and make an IED? See my separate posting about that.
Seems you are moving from the idea that the weapons loss was not Bush's
fault to accepting that it at least may have been - but then discounting the
importance of the loss.
>
>> Even VP Cheney
>>
>> Vice President Dick Cheney says 400-thousand tons of explosives
>> would be in Saddam Hussein's hands if the U-S had not invaded Iraq.
>
> It points to a major failing of Kerry: he can't describe how he
> possibly would have gotten UNSC consensus to remove Saddam from power.
That is not the topic of this conversation. I am not defending Kerry, I am
pointing out how Bush's actions seem to have lead to the loss of tons of
explosives.
>
> This goes full circle to the Al Mada question: given the strong
> evidence that UNSC seats had been corrupted by Saddam, how would there
> ever be a UNSC vote to agree to the election?
If the US can not keep its treaties, it should pull out of them. Has the US
left the UN, there would be less evidence for illegal actions by Bush. I
can not say that it would have been legal, but at least the laws I detailed
in another post would not have been.
Still, there is no reason to think that would not have lead to the loss of
these weapons... which is the topic of this thread.
>
>> In other words, if the US had not invaded Iraq, we would know where these
>> weapons were. This is not coming from some news paper that may or may not
>> be pushing some ant-Bush agenda, this is coming from Cheney - had the US not
>> invaded Iraq, we would know where those weapons were. Now we do not.
>
> This is a bizzare rhetorical argument. Cheney was simply pointing out
> that Kerry has never ever told us how he would have gotten Saddam
> removed from power.
In his comments Cheney admitted that we would know where the weapons were if
if had not been for Bush. Seems you are accepting that it is Bush's fault,
but feel it is a justifiable error. Is that correct?
>
> Could you paint a credible hypothetical how this was going to happen?
> No, I didn't think so!
>
>> Do you doubt the reports that:
>>
>> International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei reported the
>> disappearance to the U.N. Security Council on Monday, two weeks after he
>> said Iraq told the nuclear agency that the explosives had vanished from
>> the former Iraqi military installation as a result of "theft and looting
>> ... due to lack of security."
>
> Yes. Based on the methods that one would have to move these
> explosives, it's highly unlikely that they could be moved without
> detection in the past 2 weeks.
Who suggested that they were moved in the last two weeks? Not even Drudge
is claiming that. :)
>
> The only likelihood is that they were removed before the war ever
> started.
Before or after the US took responsibility from the UN over them? if you
can show that the UN was the one responsible, then you will exonerate Bush.
Nothing leads me to that conclusion.
>
>> Seems Bush should have taken better care to reduce the chance of weapons
>> getting into unknown hands.
>
> It seems that Kerry is making an awful stretch to claim that these raw
> explosives have been used by anyone to make anything!
Can you provide the quote where Kerry claims these weapons *have* been used?
>
>>> I just found an interesting ditty about the fitness of those
>>> stockpiles for IEDs -- or the lack thereof. I'll post that separately.
>>
>> Thank you. If there is evidence to show that Bush an co. were not
>> responsible for the poor security of those weapons I would like to see it.
>
> It gives you some insignt into these materials -- and how the
> allegations of Kerry and the NYT are highly doubtful.
>
> But that doesn't stop Kerry from making a new televison commercial
> about this!
>
> The person who admitted to committing War Crimes in a congressional
> hearing is now going off half-cocked again!
If you are looking for someone to support the negative tone of presidential
campaigns, you will not find that someone in me.
Steve Carroll
Phil Earnhardt <p...@dim.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:23:20 GMT, Steve Carroll
> <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
>
> >> My personal favorite (well after this book was published): over the
> >> last year: in February, the Wall Street Journal broke the story in the
> >> US about the Al Mada spreadsheet documenting the recepients of bribes
> >> from the "Oil for Food" program. They presented a well-researched
> >> detailed story.
> >>
> >> Did you read it at the time?
> >
> >Gee, Phil... Snit actually asked a question that was relevant to what he
> >was discussing for a change. Was there a particular reason that you
> >showed your hypocritical colors and avoided it:)
>
> You are right: Snit ignored the question; I asked it again.
Was that your attempt to prove you have a reading disability? Good job,
Phil... very effective.
> If he continues to ignore it, his failure to respond might become an
> issue.
Non sequitur.
> You failed to answer my questions in at least a half-dozen postings
> before I concluded that you had no interest whatsoever in answering
> them.
So then... you are admitting you are a hypocrite... that's great...
overcoming denial is a big step.
> For now, I'll give Snit the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Do you understand the difference?
Yes, I understand that you will ask of other what you won't do
yourself... it's very clear now.
> >> All seriousness aside: the Pentagon has commented in detail on these
> >> reports already. It's not the President's job to comment on the
> >> mis-reportings of the American Media. He didn't comment on the fake
> >> memos that "60 Minutes" reported and defended as accurate, either.
> >
> >"All seriousness aside"?? Glue good today...
>
> Steve: please stop immediately in your allegations that I am using
> substances illegally.
Do you understand the difference between alluding to something and
making an allegation, Phil?
> I don't know how to say it any more plainly than that.
Of course... I've already realized your vocabulary is somewhat limited
and you use certain words when they are inappropriate for what you are
attempting to convey. I am forced to make allowances for your
shortcomings. I had to draw the line when you accused me of lying based
on circumstantial evidence, though... but I'm willing to cut you some
slack when I feel like it.
> Thanks!
>
> --phil
--
Snit: "In my view, Bush is guilty based on #1 and #2, but not #3 (he is
morally and criminally guilty, but not legally guilty)."
Snit, speaking in a legal context: "Bush is guilty of breaking the law"
Steve C
Snit
fretwizz-3934F6...@netnews.comcast.net on 10/26/04 9:54 PM:
I notice you no longer use the word "proof" when discussing the evidence
against you, Steve. Why is that?
David Fritzinger
Phil Earnhardt <p...@dim.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:16:39 -0700, "L Cramer" <lzcr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Only the NY Times could think a 15-month old story is a "bombshell". The
> >theft of Iraqi weapon stockpiles, of which Saddam had scattered all over
> >Iraq, was well reported in the news media in months following the war. And
> >nobody seems to know for sure just when this stockpile vanished.
>
> Do you think that the NYT will have a front-page retraction on
> Tuesday?
>
> >The bombshell here is of the "October surprise" kind that has as its sole
> >purpose the swaying of voters.
> >
> >Yep, we should have sent more troops to Iraq. Such is the story of most
> >battles and wars.
>
> I keep wondering: if Senator John Kerry spoke about D-Day the way he
> has been critiquing the Iraq War, exactly what would he have said?
>
> --phil
So, you're going to say the Iraq war has been a huge success, and no
mistakes have been made? That appears to be the mantra from Bush and
company. Yet, every day, the news shows more and more mistakes. Heck,
even Allawi (did I spell that right?) is blaming us for the massacre of
the Iraqi soldiers.
OK, not really blaming us, just saying we were negligent. Still, when he
starts trying to put distance between his regime and the US, you know we
are in trouble.
--
Dave Fritzinger
David Fritzinger
Phil Earnhardt <p...@dim.com> wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2004 11:36:48 -0700, dfri...@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger)
> wrote:
>
> >Phil Earnhardt <p...@dim.com> wrote in message
> >news:<86prn0dck93qdso25...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:38:33 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >His troops were... and he is the one ultimately in charge of where they
> >> >are
> >> >deployed and how effective they are. The US, under Bush, failed to keep
> >> >secure a large and very dangerous cache of weaponry.
> >>
> >> This is utterly false. Please read the Drudge Report update on this
> >> story today. The weapons were removed before the US Troops ever got
> >> there in 2003.
> >
> >That is just flat out wrong. The Iraqis themselves say the explosives
> >were removed after April, 2003, which, you will recall, was *after*
> >the invasion.
>
> References?
See the Boston Globe story I referenced in another post on this thread.
>
> >> There is some ugly revisionism going on at the NYT. The liberal media
> >> is in a Last Gasp Effort to try to alter this election.
> >
> >Umm, no, it is the conservatives and the Republicans that are doing
> >the revisionism.
>
> References?
Well, let's see... First Bush says the Iraq war is about WMD and ties
between SH and OBL. Now, when those have gone away, it is about bringing
freedom and democracy to the Middle East. That sort of thing.
>
> >> > While claiming to work
> >> >to keep weapons out of the hands of the "evil doers", Bush seems to have
> >> >essentially handed the "evil doers" a large amount of weapons. This is
> >> >not
> >> >a small thing.
> >>
> >> The New York Times Fraud is not a small thing. As was the CBS News
> >> Fraud about the forged documents.
> >
> >Sure, yell about the sources when you can't actually refute the story.
>
> Of course I can. CBS themselves apologized for the forged documents
> that they represented as true. Did you miss that story?
You do believe in changing the subject, don't you? We were talking about
the explosives in Iraq, not Bush's service in Texas.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644546.shtml
>
> That's what I mean when I ask for references.
>
> >> Are the liberals outraged at these iddy biddy teeny weeny factual
> >> errors that are creeping up in the media?
> >
> >How about the conservatives being outraged about the lies from the
> >Bush campaign.
>
> References?
>
> > Such as the mischaracterization of Kerry's health care
> >plan
>
> It's a huge regluatory nightmare.
Too bad that isn't the mischaracterization I was talking about. And, I'm
not sure Bush has mentioned your point. My point was about the times
Bush has said Kerry's healthcare plan amounted to government takeover of
the healthcare system, even after Kerry explained it in the third
debate.
>
> And I have a fundamental question I have yet to hear anyone answer:
>
> If Kerry's plan is poor compared to what private employers provide,
> how long will it take before people on that plan start complaining
> about "Second-class medical care" and demand moer?
>
> If Kerry's plan is comparable to what private employers provide, why
> will private employers keep offering this benefit? Why not just
> improve the bottom line by dropping their health care?
>
> If Kerry is elected, this is going to be a huge program, and it will
> only get larger as private health-care only becomes an afterthought.
You might think about starting a different thread on this.
>
> >, The taking out of context of Kerry's statements which make it
> >look as if he wasn't changed by 9/11 when he actually very concerned
> >about terrorism *before* 9/11 (unlike the Bushies).
>
> I'm more interested in Kerry's actions. Like how he voted against $6B
> of intelligence funding after the first terrorist attack on the WTC.
Reference?
>
> Or how Kerry voted against the Gulf War -- how he thought that
> diplomacy would somehow have Saddam remove himself from Kuwait.
In hindsight, I believe he was wrong there. However, he is allowed to
make a mistake.
>
> > Or, the total lack
> >of responsibility in the administration. People screw up left and
> >right, and no one takes any responsibilty, or suffers any
> >consequences.
>
> I have no idea what that means.
Clearly, the CIA screwed up with the pre-war intelligence. Yet, no one
suffered. Clearly, Rumsfeld screwed up with the post-war planning for
Iraq, yet he is still Secretary of Defense. Clearly, many screwups led
to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, yet, with the exception of a few
non-coms and PFC's, no one has paid. And, in todays news we see the CIA
removed prisoners from Iraq in direct contravention of the Geneva
Accords. Yet, no one has paid. There is no accountability in this
administration.
>
> References?
>
> > Rumsfeld not putting enough troops in Iraq,
>
> That's disinformation by the Kerry campaign. Just like his
> fear-mongering about a draft -- based on legislation introduced by
> Democrats in January of 2003. Democrats who didn't even vote for their
> own legislation (!) when it was put up for a vote. What a bunch of
> manipulative fear-mongerers!
Actually, it isn't. Bremer himself thought there should have been more
troops in Iraq. But, nice try to at lying and spinning.
>
> > the bad
> >intelligence (or, lies, take your choice) leading up to the war in
> >Iraq
>
> That's a strategic failure of intelligence -- a failure over years. A
> failure that includes Bush Sr. and WJ Clinton.
Yet, the Intel told the Bush administration that there was no yellowcake
from Niger, and the aluminum tubes were not being used for the
enrichment of uranium. Yet we still heard the stories. That suggests
lies. However, if it was the intel that was so bad, why hasn't the CIA
been cleaned out. As I said, no accountability in the administration.
And, thank you for making my point.
>
> >, misleading Congress on the cost of the Medicare drug plan, etc.
> >Take your choice. Why aren't you outraged about all the lies and
> >deception of this adminsitration?
>
> What's outrageous is that you characterize them as lies.
Certainly, the administration lied about the cost of the Medicare bill.
The chief controller of the Medicare system was threatened with firing
if he told Congress of the true cost. So, that is a lie.
>
> What's outrageous is that you don't call Kerry a liar when he reported
> on the danger of WMDs in Iraq -- using that same intelligence data.
As you are wont to say, reference? And, even if Kerry thought Iraq had
WMD, would he have gone in without better proof? Sorry, but you are
involved in some pretty slimy spinning here.
>
> What's outrageous about the Democrats is that I have yet to see a
> single on who can reconcile Kerry's outrageous statements from his
> book "The New Soldier" -- how they all attempt to ignore the book. How
> the Democratic Legal Eagles have done everything they can to try to
> burn that book.
To tell the truth, I have no idea what you are talking about. Enlighten
me if you will.
>
> --phil
--
Dave Fritzinger
David Fritzinger
GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> Phil Earnhardt wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:48:40 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048
> >>
> >>According to The New York Times
> >
> >
> > Sorry. This story is a No Pass. And those five words above shoud start
> > to be a red flag.
> >
> > http://www.drudgereport.com/nbcw.htm
> >
> > " An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa
> > weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of
> > Iraq.
> >
> > " According to NBCNEWS, the HMX and RDX explosives were already
> > missing when the American troops arrived. "
> >
> >
> >>First, the Bush administration says that weapons that are in Iraq are a
> >>reason to go to war with the country... then *those* weapons are found to be
> >>a lie / mistake / hoax / whatever... and now the Bush administration wants
> >>us to believe the hundreds of tons of powerful explosives it let get looted
> >>are no big deal.
> >>
> >>Maybe the Bush administration should have spent as much resources defending
> >>the very weapons that actually *may* be used against us as they spent
> >>defending the oil records... and lying about WMD... and lying about
> >>connections with 9/11.
> >
> >
> > The story is a NYT "Election Week Special". Take it with a grain of
> > salt, please.
> >
>
> One thing for certain... fear sells.
Yeah, you are right. Fear is probably the only reason Bush is doing as
well as he is. After all, they are the ones selling fear.
OK, at least, they are doing far more of it than the Democrats.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
>>>> The questions were about the spreadsheet first published by Al Mada --
>>>> the "smoking gun" about the bribes in the "Oil for Food" program.
>>>
>>> Right... and they were not on topic about the Iraqi explosives lost from the
>>> actions of Bush.
>>
>> *You* were the one who questioned the reliability of the Drudge Report
>> as compared to the NYT.
>
>I mentioned a report that happened to be on the NYT. You started focusing
>on your lack of trust for the NYT, and used, as part of your evidence the
>Drudge Report.
...and you used a smiley statement to attempt to discount the Drudge
Report.
>I used to responses:
>
>- the Drudge report is not exactly an unbiased source
Compared to the NYT?
>- in any case, we should use multiple sources. I provided them.
You provided a bunch of wire service reports. And the Washington
report was an echo of the LA Times. I have no idea if the LA Times
report was simply a regurgitation of the NYT report.
In short, we really have no idea how many distinct sources you
actually provided. All you did was go a Google-Dive.
>> I pointed out that the NYT has had a complete breakdown in reporting
>> news important to the world: they failed to report about the Al Mada
>> "Smoking Gun" for months (!) after the story was broken by someone
>> else.
>
>Ok. You pointed it out and I have not argued with it, and even stated I
>have no knowledge of it.
Oh .... my .... God.
> I do not see it as being relevant to the missing
>explosives.
It's one if the biggest stories of the dynamics with Iraq in the last
decade. It demonstrates the failure of the integrity of the UNSC.
The NYT's failure to report on the story indicates that they really
have no intention on reporting of the truth about Iraq. And people
like you -- who are probably in the 99th percentile of literacy in
current events -- don't even know about it!
You don't want to look at the researched work about the nonsense of
reporting at the NYT; I gave you a quick (and disgusting) sample: the
NYT is not to be trusted on their stories. And you'd better be careful
that you're not getting an echo of a NYT story when reading from other
sources.
>>>> I asked why the NYT failed to cover that story for months (!) after it
>>>> was broken in the US by the WSJ.
>>>
>>> How is that related to the tons of explosives that the Bush administration
>>> allowed to get lost?
>>
>> Since the source -- or, at least, one principal source -- of this
>> story is the NYT, its correctness is seriously in doubt. After all,
>> the NYT failed to report on the Al Mada spreadsheet for months (!)
>> after the story was broken by the WSJ in the US.
>
>You keep running to that story as though it were related. I do not see the
>connection.
It's just like Steve: if someone has a habit of lying, you need to be
skeptical about everything they say!
>>
>>>> The question goes to the fundamental credibility of the NYT: how any
>>>> newspaper claiming to cover "all the news that's fit to print" could
>>>> ignore this vital story.
>>>
>>> If you do not trust the NYT, then don't.
>>
>> Then please take your own advice! Find some more objective source than
>> the NTY!
>
>I have. I have shown you many sources.
You have not -- not with any degree of confidence. How many sources
did you actually show? How many of those sources are actually
newspapers? How many of them just regurgitated the story from the NYT?
>>
>>> But that does not answer the
>>> questions about the tons of explosives that the Bush administration allowed
>>> to get lost.
>>
>> You are still taking the NYT story on face value. Why are you doing
>> that?
>
>I am looking at many more sources
Allow me to shout: HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU ARE? Which of those sources
actually researched the story themselves? I could not tell, but I
could tell you were sloppy: the Longview, WA paper was just a re-hash
of an LA Times story (which might well have been a re-hash of someone
else -- you'd have to look at the LA Times in order to tell).
> - some of which I have shared with you.
You pretty clearly google-dived and you didn't qualify your results.
>Why insist this only comes from the NYT? What about the AP? What about VP
>Cheney! I quoted both of them, among others.
Please. The Cheney quote was not a source. Cheney just pointed out the
obvious: that Senator John Kerry has failed to *ever* spell out --
with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight -- how the hell he would have
gotten Saddam out of power.
>>>>> I do want to point out, however, that
>>>>> you made claims about the explosives in Iraq that seem to be incorrect - it
>>>>> does seem that the US blew it by letting the weapons "escape".
>>>>
>>>> Then you should post references about that. But you should not ignore
>>>> the fundamental questions about the gross partiality of the NYT.
>>>
>>> Do you know the name of the logical fallacy where you attempt to refute
>>> information based on the source?
>>
>> No.
>
>You have used the term yourself.
>
>http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem
Please. Ad hominem is attacking the source: "Oscar is an idiot." It's
completely different to question a source because they have a history
of manipulating the news in their publication.
>> Is there a name for a logical fallacy where you attempt to take
>> stories from a dubious source as the gospel source?
>
>Not that I know of. Why do you ask?
Because that's what you do when you cite the NYT!
And you may well be citing the NYT in the google-diving you did!
> Keep in mind that I have looked at
>many sources for my information, including VP Cheney.
See above. You are NOT citing Cheney. He is pointing out the obvious:
that Kerry has never ever spelled out -- even with 20/20 hindsight --
how he would have possibly removed Saddam from Iraq.
>>
>>> In any case, the NYT is not the only one reporting the story.
>>>
>>> Look at the Associated Press:
>>>
>>> http://snipurl.com/a2z2
>>
>> The thing the story fails to inform: how could one take that raw
>> explosive and make an IED? See my separate posting about that.
>
>Seems you are moving from the idea that the weapons loss was not Bush's
>fault to accepting that it at least may have been - but then discounting the
>importance of the loss.
I'm saying: even if the raw explosives were still there: how does
Kerry know that they could have possibly been used for IEDs?
What the hell is he basing that on?
Just like: how the hell -- with 20/20 hindsight -- would Senator John
Kerry have gotten Saddam removed from office? Especially in light of
the Al Mada corruption giving strong evidence that at least one UNSC
seat had been compromised by Saddam.
>>
>>> Even VP Cheney
>>>
>>> Vice President Dick Cheney says 400-thousand tons of explosives
>>> would be in Saddam Hussein's hands if the U-S had not invaded Iraq.
>>
>> It points to a major failing of Kerry: he can't describe how he
>> possibly would have gotten UNSC consensus to remove Saddam from power.
>
>That is not the topic of this conversation.
It's just more of Kerry's second guessing.
And I'm asking the mother of all second-guessing: that Senator John
Kerry could somehow have removed Saddam from power in a "better" way.
You're welcome to ignore the question, Snit. Kerry has done a pretty
damn good job ignoring it!
> I am not defending Kerry
Have you seen the disgraceful advertisement the DNC has already
released about this alleged incident?
>, I am
>pointing out how Bush's actions seem to have lead to the loss of tons of
>explosives.
Read what the explosive expert said! How do you think those hundreds
of tons could have possibly been moved? A few hundred trucks cruising
in and out? Perhaps they put it in their thermoses every day?
The point: the story of moving those raw explosives after the war just
doesn't have the ring of truth.
>>
>> This goes full circle to the Al Mada question: given the strong
>> evidence that UNSC seats had been corrupted by Saddam, how would there
>> ever be a UNSC vote to agree to the election?
>
>If the US can not keep its treaties, it should pull out of them.
And if UNSC members can't keep their seats from being bought, they
should remove their country from the UNSC.
Snit: this is why you need to get yourself educated about the Al Mada
bribes. You really have no standing to say anything at all about the
UN unless you're current on the corruption which has [allegedly]
happened there ... all the way to Kofi Annan.
>>> In other words, if the US had not invaded Iraq, we would know where these
>>> weapons were. This is not coming from some news paper that may or may not
>>> be pushing some ant-Bush agenda, this is coming from Cheney - had the US not
>>> invaded Iraq, we would know where those weapons were. Now we do not.
>>
>> This is a bizzare rhetorical argument. Cheney was simply pointing out
>> that Kerry has never ever told us how he would have gotten Saddam
>> removed from power.
>
>In his comments Cheney admitted that we would know where the weapons were if
>if had not been for Bush.
No. This is just a silly rhetorical position you are taking. You
completely misunderstood Cheney's statements.
Cheney's statements were a resonse to Kerry's second-guessing. All
Dick is doing is pointing to the mother of all of Kerry's
second-guessing -- and his failure to "fill in the dots".
> Seems you are accepting that it is Bush's fault,
>but feel it is a justifiable error. Is that correct?
The story just doesn't have the ring of truth, Snit. See above.
>> Could you paint a credible hypothetical how this was going to happen?
>> No, I didn't think so!
I really wish you would take a stab at this. Unless someone can
explain how Kerry would have removed Saddam, I have no idea how they
*know* he "could have done it better". It sounds just too much like
Dogma.
>>> Do you doubt the reports that:
>>>
>>> International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei reported the
>>> disappearance to the U.N. Security Council on Monday, two weeks after he
>>> said Iraq told the nuclear agency that the explosives had vanished from
>>> the former Iraqi military installation as a result of "theft and looting
>>> ... due to lack of security."
>>
>> Yes. Based on the methods that one would have to move these
>> explosives, it's highly unlikely that they could be moved without
>> detection in the past 2 weeks.
>
>Who suggested that they were moved in the last two weeks? Not even Drudge
>is claiming that. :)
Who is providing a credible model of when and how they could have been
removed -- other than before the war?
>> The only likelihood is that they were removed before the war ever
>> started.
>
>Before or after the US took responsibility from the UN over them?
What exact date are you talking about?
> if you
>can show that the UN was the one responsible, then you will exonerate Bush.
>Nothing leads me to that conclusion.
>>
>>> Seems Bush should have taken better care to reduce the chance of weapons
>>> getting into unknown hands.
>>
>> It seems that Kerry is making an awful stretch to claim that these raw
>> explosives have been used by anyone to make anything!
>
>Can you provide the quote where Kerry claims these weapons *have* been used?
I believe his ad says that terrorists are using those weapons now. I
need to go see this disgraceful ad.
>>
>>>> I just found an interesting ditty about the fitness of those
>>>> stockpiles for IEDs -- or the lack thereof. I'll post that separately.
>>>
>>> Thank you. If there is evidence to show that Bush an co. were not
>>> responsible for the poor security of those weapons I would like to see it.
>>
>> It gives you some insignt into these materials -- and how the
>> allegations of Kerry and the NYT are highly doubtful.
>>
>> But that doesn't stop Kerry from making a new televison commercial
>> about this!
>>
>> The person who admitted to committing War Crimes in a congressional
>> hearing is now going off half-cocked again!
>
>If you are looking for someone to support the negative tone of presidential
>campaigns, you will not find that someone in me.
Yet you were the one who launched this thread here -- and kept the
dubious title of the story as the title of this thread.
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
>>>> That's consistent. You also told us that you were ignorant of the book
>>>> which impeached the credibility of the NYT.
>>>>
>>>> Did you have a chance to go look at the book?
>>>
>>> No. Nor do I have plans to. Have you read The Lexus and the Olive Tree? I
>>> read it and liked at least parts of it.
>>
>> I haven't. The grim analysis of the NYT is pertinent to this
>> discussion. Is your book pertinent wo this thread?
>
>Well, it talks about information flow... so, sure... as much as attacking
>the NYT is for their reporting of Bush losing tons of explosives... the real
>question is about Bush and co. losing the explosives, not about the NYT.
It's really about the NYT, too: that's the story that everybody was
quoting, too. What if the NYT is also wrong about this story? What if
those raw explosives were long gone before the war ever started?
>Now if there was no additional evidence, and only the NYT was making this
>claim, *then* the reputation or bias of the NYT might matter.
Then someone needs to start providing a model as to how they think the
raw explosives allegedly got moved.
Has your google-diving found anyone who explains how this much stuff
was allegedly moved -- especially since it would have taken a special
kind of transport to move it?
The far simpler explanation: a fleet of trucks -- before the war!
>> The failure of the NYT to publish anything about this story for months
>> (!) after the WSJ broke it in the US is an indication that they have
>> no interest at all in presenting "all the news that's fit to print".
>> They have an interest in presenting the news that supports their
>> agenda.
>
>That is not on topic of the Bush administration letting tons of explosives
>go missing in Iraq.
*Allegedly* letting tons of explosive go. There has been no finding of
the facts.
Now you know: if you're going to cite a source, you're far better off
getting some source other than the NYT!
>> As such, you should consider any story published in the NYT with huge
>> skepticism.
>
>Then look at the many other sources.
Then please say which of your articles were actually other sources!
You just presented us with the raw google-diving. That's not good
enough.
> The AP or even VP Cheney
Please stop saying that! VP Cheney is NOT a source on this! He's
asking a question that no Democrat -- especially Senator John Kerry --
can answer: using perfect 20/20 hindsight, what would he have done to
remove Saddam from power?
Kerry voted against the Gulf War. If Kerry's vote had won, Saddam
would still be in power in Kuwait, too! Go back and read the words:
Kerry was asking for more UN diplomacy, then!
The point you're missing: nothing in war is perfect, and it's just
plain stupid for Kerry to keep second-guessing so many details.
S##t happens in a war. What would Kerry have said about the errors and
the massive losses of human life on D-Day?
>, for example
>- even the VP has stated that had Bush not attacked Iraq, we would know
>where the weapons would be. I would prefer them in a known location than in
>the hands of the unknown.
I would have preferred that Saddam be removed in teh Gulf War. The UN
compromises after that point led to 10 years of suffering and death in
Iraq. And Saddam's manipulation of the UN led to its corruption and
current insignificance in the world.
>> OTOH, the NYT has proven itself as a disreputable source of impartial
>> news.
>
>What percent of their stories are incorrect and how does that compare to
>other large papers?
How does it care to the Drudge Report.
*You* are the one who put the smiley when I suggested looking at
Drudge.
>> In short: I was asking you to back up your claim: to explain why you
>> thought we should not trust Drudge. I was looking for facts rather
>> than conjecture.
>>
>> What have you got?
>
>Look below. Several examples of incorrect claims by Drudge.
And you need to compare that to the track record of the NYT.
How much credibility did the NYT lose for you by their failure to
report on the Al Mada spreadsheet?
>>>>
>>>> What source do you have for your conclusions about Drudge?
>>>
>>> Other than common sense after reading his web page, here is one source:
>>>
>>> http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Matt_Drudge#Errors_and_Bias_at_the_Report
>>>
>>> OR http://snipurl.com/a2y0
>>>
>>> ----- Start Quotes -----
>>>
>>> Rumors and articles in the Report are occasionally revealed to be completely
>>> wrong, and Drudge is frequently accused of biased reporting.
>>
>> Doesn't sound like a huge damnation of the site. I see no attempt of
>> the critic to get Drudge's feedback on that.
>
>Tsk Tsk. You snipped away other comments and did not look at the page in
>question.
Yes, I did. He was reporting on *rumors*, for goodness sake!
>I am sure we could find more.
Contrast this with the NYT failure: after getting scooped by the WSJ
on the Al Mada spreadsheet, they still failed for months (!) to get
any story at all themselves.
>> Again: I'd like to see you reconcile this against the NYT's
>> categorical failure to report on the Al Mada story for months (!)
>> after a competitor had reported on it. That's a collassal failure for
>> that news-gathering organization.
>
>I have not looked into the NYT reporting of that story.
Perhaps you should!
>That story, and the NYT in general, however, are not connected to the Bush
>administration losing tons of explosives in Iraq.
Alleged loss. Please. Many things would have to be explained before
the NYT story can be taken at face value.
>Care to comment on that?
See way above. To me, the story doesn't have the ring of truth. I have
no idea what value the raw explosives would have to small-time
terrorists; they make far more sense if they're in some other country.
This whole story lacks the ring of truth.
>> Just a request to reconcile the failure of the NYT -- as described
>> above.
>>
>> Thanks!
>
>I have no information on that claim against the NYT.
With all due respect: that's quite naive. You need to be far more
rounded out in your knowledge of the US media.
> On that claim against
>the NYT, I admit ignorance. Even if it turns out that the NYT is no better
>than the Nat'l Enquirer, that does not explain away the Bush administration
>losing so many tons of weapons.
Alleged loss. Please.
Thanks!
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
>> -- Begin quoted material --
>>
>> NBC News reported that on April 10, 2003, its crew was embedded with
>> the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division when troops arrived at the Al
>> Qaqaa storage facility south of Baghdad.
>>
>> While the troops found large stockpiles of conventional explosives,
>> they did not find HMX or RDX, the types of powerful explosives that
>> reportedly went missing, according to NBC.
>>
>> -- End quoted material --
>
>Gee, you cut my material without marking the cut, and inserted your
>own, making it look as if I had nothing to back up what I was saying.
>Now, why would you be so dishonest as to do that?
My apologies. No deception was intended.
>However, we also have this from the Boston Globe:
>
>http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/10/26/explosives_were_looted_after_iraq_invasion/
>
>And, I quote:
>
>UN nuclear official cites security lapse
UN officials are not folk I have a lot of respect for right now. The
Bush administration has lit a fire under them for their abuses in the
"Food for Oil" program. I am confident that these UN officials would
be far more comfortable if Bush were out of office.
>Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
>disclosed the security lapse to the UN Security Council yesterday
>after receiving a letter from the Iraqi Ministry of Science and
>Technology earlier this month that informed him of the loss and blamed
>it on ''theft and looting of governmental installations due to lack of
>security."
I'd like to hear some direct commentary from the Iraqi officials.
>> >Note that the story, while in an admittedly biased site, contains
>> >references from mainstream media sources. Sorry, but the
>> >administration is lying.
>>
>> We shall see. This is the October Surprise. It is unfortunate for CBS
>> News that they weren't allowed to wait to report this story on Sunday.
>
>And, it is too bad for the Bushies that this story shows yet another
>example of the sheer, unmitigated incompetence of this administration.
You are presuming that the stories is true.
You're awfully arrogant with your words. Can you answer the question:
with perfect 20/20 hindsight, exactly how would Senator John Kerry
have gotten Saddam removed from office.
Do tell. Please spell out the details about how that would have
happened.
>> Unfortunately, there is plenty of time between now and Tuesday to sort
>> this puppy out.
>
>Yup, and it don't look good for the Bushies.
More arrogance. We shall see.
It didn't look very good when 60 Minutes originally announced the
forged documents they had, either.
BTW: how upset were you that someone forged those documents and that
CBS News was so lackadaisical in their failure to verify the
forgeries?
> Meaning, it does look
>better for the American People.
You are most certainly entitled to your opinion. Diversity is the
spice of life.
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
<fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
>In article <lajtn0p79de3f1icl...@4ax.com>,
> Phil Earnhardt <p...@dim.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:23:20 GMT, Steve Carroll
>> <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> My personal favorite (well after this book was published): over the
>> >> last year: in February, the Wall Street Journal broke the story in the
>> >> US about the Al Mada spreadsheet documenting the recepients of bribes
>> >> from the "Oil for Food" program. They presented a well-researched
>> >> detailed story.
>> >>
>> >> Did you read it at the time?
>> >
>> >Gee, Phil... Snit actually asked a question that was relevant to what he
>> >was discussing for a change. Was there a particular reason that you
>> >showed your hypocritical colors and avoided it:)
>>
>> You are right: Snit ignored the question; I asked it again.
>
>Was that your attempt to prove you have a reading disability? Good job,
>Phil... very effective.
Thank you. Snit has since spoken about the question.
>> If he continues to ignore it, his failure to respond might become an
>> issue.
>
>Non sequitur.
>
>> You failed to answer my questions in at least a half-dozen postings
>> before I concluded that you had no interest whatsoever in answering
>> them.
>
>So then... you are admitting you are a hypocrite.
Hardly. I'm saying I didn't pass judgment on you after one posting,
and I won't do that with Snit, either.
>.. that's great...
>overcoming denial is a big step.
You came to an inappropriate conclusion.
>> For now, I'll give Snit the benefit of the doubt.
>>
>> Do you understand the difference?
>
>Yes, I understand that you will ask of other what you won't do
>yourself... it's very clear now.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, too -- until you continued to
fail to answer the questions.
>
>> >> All seriousness aside: the Pentagon has commented in detail on these
>> >> reports already. It's not the President's job to comment on the
>> >> mis-reportings of the American Media. He didn't comment on the fake
>> >> memos that "60 Minutes" reported and defended as accurate, either.
>> >
>> >"All seriousness aside"?? Glue good today...
>>
>> Steve: please stop immediately in your allegations that I am using
>> substances illegally.
>
>Do you understand the difference between alluding to something and
>making an allegation, Phil?
No. I have no tolerance for your innuendo, Steve. It has no point in
any pubic discussion here.
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
What exact dates are you talking about? Why don't you spell out the
timeline...
>>
>> These materials are useful for a manufacturing operation. It's far
>> more difficult for a terrorist to *improvise* using these raw exploive
>> materials. That's what begs the question about Kerry's new commercial:
>> how in God's name can he know these materials could possibly have used
>> by terrorists to created IEDs?
>
>Do you doubt that such weapons could *possibly* be used in any number of
>way?
I would like to know exactly how much work it would take for someone
to take these raw explosives and make something out of them. As the
expert says, there are far better sources.
--phil
Snit
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:22:37 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> The questions were about the spreadsheet first published by Al Mada --
>>>>> the "smoking gun" about the bribes in the "Oil for Food" program.
>>>>
>>>> Right... and they were not on topic about the Iraqi explosives lost from
>>>> the actions of Bush.
>>>
>>> *You* were the one who questioned the reliability of the Drudge Report
>>> as compared to the NYT.
>>
>> I mentioned a report that happened to be on the NYT. You started focusing
>> on your lack of trust for the NYT, and used, as part of your evidence the
>> Drudge Report.
>
> ...and you used a smiley statement to attempt to discount the Drudge
> Report.
>
>> I used to responses:
>>
>> - the Drudge report is not exactly an unbiased source
>
> Compared to the NYT?
Both seem to be biased. It would be unwise to use either as a sole source
of info.
>
>> - in any case, we should use multiple sources. I provided them.
>
> You provided a bunch of wire service reports. And the Washington
> report was an echo of the LA Times. I have no idea if the LA Times
> report was simply a regurgitation of the NYT report.
What about the AP... and even quotes from Cheney?
>
> In short, we really have no idea how many distinct sources you
> actually provided. All you did was go a Google-Dive.
A quick dive that came up with many sources.
>
>>> I pointed out that the NYT has had a complete breakdown in reporting
>>> news important to the world: they failed to report about the Al Mada
>>> "Smoking Gun" for months (!) after the story was broken by someone
>>> else.
>>
>> Ok. You pointed it out and I have not argued with it, and even stated I
>> have no knowledge of it.
>
> Oh .... my .... God.
>
>> I do not see it as being relevant to the missing
>> explosives.
>
> It's one if the biggest stories of the dynamics with Iraq in the last
> decade. It demonstrates the failure of the integrity of the UNSC.
In your opinion.
>
> The NYT's failure to report on the story indicates that they really
> have no intention on reporting of the truth about Iraq. And people
> like you -- who are probably in the 99th percentile of literacy in
> current events -- don't even know about it!
You seem a bit... preoccupied with it.
>
> You don't want to look at the researched work about the nonsense of
> reporting at the NYT; I gave you a quick (and disgusting) sample: the
> NYT is not to be trusted on their stories. And you'd better be careful
> that you're not getting an echo of a NYT story when reading from other
> sources.
Um. Ok. Care to talk about the 350 tons of explosives that went missing in
Iraq under Bush's watch?
>
>>>>> I asked why the NYT failed to cover that story for months (!) after it
>>>>> was broken in the US by the WSJ.
>>>>
>>>> How is that related to the tons of explosives that the Bush administration
>>>> allowed to get lost?
>>>
>>> Since the source -- or, at least, one principal source -- of this
>>> story is the NYT, its correctness is seriously in doubt. After all,
>>> the NYT failed to report on the Al Mada spreadsheet for months (!)
>>> after the story was broken by the WSJ in the US.
>>
>> You keep running to that story as though it were related. I do not see the
>> connection.
>
> It's just like Steve: if someone has a habit of lying, you need to be
> skeptical about everything they say!
I would not take Steve or the NYT's word alone. :)
You do know, of course, that Steve must really be enjoying out disagreement
here. Let me point out that while you and I disagree, and may even think
the other is missing important points, neither of us has suggested the other
is a drug user, a sexual harasser, or a rapist. I wonder if Steve will
understand that we are providing an example of a reasoned... or at least
more reasoned... disagreement.
Ok, now back to our disagreements...
>
>>>
>>>>> The question goes to the fundamental credibility of the NYT: how any
>>>>> newspaper claiming to cover "all the news that's fit to print" could
>>>>> ignore this vital story.
>>>>
>>>> If you do not trust the NYT, then don't.
>>>
>>> Then please take your own advice! Find some more objective source than
>>> the NTY!
>>
>> I have. I have shown you many sources.
>
> You have not -- not with any degree of confidence. How many sources
> did you actually show? How many of those sources are actually
> newspapers? How many of them just regurgitated the story from the NYT?
Even if they are just "regurgitating" the NYT story, they seemed confident
in it. You have attacked the NYT as being biased... do you think all the
newspapers who agree with their story are equally untrustworthy?
>>>
>>>> But that does not answer the
>>>> questions about the tons of explosives that the Bush administration allowed
>>>> to get lost.
>>>
>>> You are still taking the NYT story on face value. Why are you doing
>>> that?
>>
>> I am looking at many more sources
>
> Allow me to shout: HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU ARE?
Not sure I could have prevented it. Do you feel better?
> Which of those sources actually researched the story themselves? I could not
> tell, but I could tell you were sloppy: the Longview, WA paper was just a
> re-hash of an LA Times story (which might well have been a re-hash of someone
> else -- you'd have to look at the LA Times in order to tell).
I quoted at least three separate sources: the AP, the NYT, and Cheney. All
agree that had it not been for Bush, the US and the world would know where
those weapons are.
>
>> - some of which I have shared with you.
>
> You pretty clearly google-dived and you didn't qualify your results.
>
>> Why insist this only comes from the NYT? What about the AP? What about VP
>> Cheney! I quoted both of them, among others.
>
> Please. The Cheney quote was not a source. Cheney just pointed out the
> obvious: that Senator John Kerry has failed to *ever* spell out --
> with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight -- how the hell he would have
> gotten Saddam out of power.
Part of his claim was that if Bush had not gone into Iraq we would know
where the weapons in question are.
You seem to feel the loss of the weapons was a reasonable price to pay (or,
really, part of the price to pay).
>
>>>>>> I do want to point out, however, that
>>>>>> you made claims about the explosives in Iraq that seem to be incorrect -
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> does seem that the US blew it by letting the weapons "escape".
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you should post references about that. But you should not ignore
>>>>> the fundamental questions about the gross partiality of the NYT.
>>>>
>>>> Do you know the name of the logical fallacy where you attempt to refute
>>>> information based on the source?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> You have used the term yourself.
>>
>> http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem
>
>
> Please. Ad hominem is attacking the source: "Oscar is an idiot." It's
> completely different to question a source because they have a history
> of manipulating the news in their publication.
Oscar is an idiot. therefore everything he says is false.
The NYT is a biased organization, therefore everything they post is false.
Not so different. Of course, their is a flaw with my claim as well... we
are not talking strictly a logical argument - we are talking trustworthiness
as a source for research... and in that you do not trust the NYT... and I do
not fault you for that.
How about the AP? Cheney? They seem to agree - had Bush not attacked Iraq,
the world would know where the weapons are today.
>
>>> Is there a name for a logical fallacy where you attempt to take
>>> stories from a dubious source as the gospel source?
>>
>> Not that I know of. Why do you ask?
>
> Because that's what you do when you cite the NYT!
You are still acting as if I have only one source. May I ask why?
>
> And you may well be citing the NYT in the google-diving you did!
>
>> Keep in mind that I have looked at
>> many sources for my information, including VP Cheney.
>
> See above. You are NOT citing Cheney. He is pointing out the obvious:
> that Kerry has never ever spelled out -- even with 20/20 hindsight --
> how he would have possibly removed Saddam from Iraq.
The fact that Cheney *also* stated things in addition to his claims about
Bush losing the weapons is not a part of the conversation. Cheney stated:
It is not at all clear that those explosives were even at the weapons
facility when our troops arrived in the area of Baghdad,
Now if there is evidence to suggest the weapons were gone before the US took
over from the UN, please provide it. If not, the weapons were lost some
time during Bush's watch.
>>>
>>>> In any case, the NYT is not the only one reporting the story.
>>>>
>>>> Look at the Associated Press:
>>>>
>>>> http://snipurl.com/a2z2
>>>
>>> The thing the story fails to inform: how could one take that raw
>>> explosive and make an IED? See my separate posting about that.
>>
>> Seems you are moving from the idea that the weapons loss was not Bush's
>> fault to accepting that it at least may have been - but then discounting the
>> importance of the loss.
>
> I'm saying: even if the raw explosives were still there: how does
> Kerry know that they could have possibly been used for IEDs?
My guess: such weapons can be used for such things.
>
> What the hell is he basing that on?
>
> Just like: how the hell -- with 20/20 hindsight -- would Senator John
> Kerry have gotten Saddam removed from office? Especially in light of
> the Al Mada corruption giving strong evidence that at least one UNSC
> seat had been compromised by Saddam.
Please provide that evidence.
>
>>>
>>>> Even VP Cheney
>>>>
>>>> Vice President Dick Cheney says 400-thousand tons of explosives
>>>> would be in Saddam Hussein's hands if the U-S had not invaded Iraq.
>>>
>>> It points to a major failing of Kerry: he can't describe how he
>>> possibly would have gotten UNSC consensus to remove Saddam from power.
>>
>> That is not the topic of this conversation.
>
> It's just more of Kerry's second guessing.
I get it. You hate Kerry.
>
> And I'm asking the mother of all second-guessing: that Senator John
> Kerry could somehow have removed Saddam from power in a "better" way.
Perhaps. We will never know. I hope we get a chance to see how he is as a
president.
>
> You're welcome to ignore the question, Snit. Kerry has done a pretty
> damn good job ignoring it!
>
>> I am not defending Kerry
>
> Have you seen the disgraceful advertisement the DNC has already
> released about this alleged incident?
Not sure which ad you mean.
>
>> , I am
>> pointing out how Bush's actions seem to have lead to the loss of tons of
>> explosives.
>
> Read what the explosive expert said! How do you think those hundreds
> of tons could have possibly been moved? A few hundred trucks cruising
> in and out? Perhaps they put it in their thermoses every day?
Are you suggesting that they are still there? That they never existed?
>
> The point: the story of moving those raw explosives after the war just
> doesn't have the ring of truth.
Do you think they were moved during the UN's watch? If so, then Bush is not
at fault.
>
>>>
>>> This goes full circle to the Al Mada question: given the strong
>>> evidence that UNSC seats had been corrupted by Saddam, how would there
>>> ever be a UNSC vote to agree to the election?
>>
>> If the US can not keep its treaties, it should pull out of them.
>
> And if UNSC members can't keep their seats from being bought, they
> should remove their country from the UNSC.
>
> Snit: this is why you need to get yourself educated about the Al Mada
> bribes. You really have no standing to say anything at all about the
> UN unless you're current on the corruption which has [allegedly]
> happened there ... all the way to Kofi Annan.
Then the US should pull out.
>
>>>> In other words, if the US had not invaded Iraq, we would know where these
>>>> weapons were. This is not coming from some news paper that may or may not
>>>> be pushing some ant-Bush agenda, this is coming from Cheney - had the US
>>>> not
>>>> invaded Iraq, we would know where those weapons were. Now we do not.
>>>
>>> This is a bizzare rhetorical argument. Cheney was simply pointing out
>>> that Kerry has never ever told us how he would have gotten Saddam
>>> removed from power.
>>
>> In his comments Cheney admitted that we would know where the weapons were if
>> if had not been for Bush.
>
> No. This is just a silly rhetorical position you are taking. You
> completely misunderstood Cheney's statements.
>
> Cheney's statements were a resonse to Kerry's second-guessing. All
> Dick is doing is pointing to the mother of all of Kerry's
> second-guessing -- and his failure to "fill in the dots".
He does make other points. But that does not mean he did not make the point
I talk about.
>
>> Seems you are accepting that it is Bush's fault,
>> but feel it is a justifiable error. Is that correct?
>
> The story just doesn't have the ring of truth, Snit. See above.
Show support that the weapons either never existed or moved during the UN
watch.
>
>>> Could you paint a credible hypothetical how this was going to happen?
>>> No, I didn't think so!
>
> I really wish you would take a stab at this. Unless someone can
> explain how Kerry would have removed Saddam, I have no idea how they
> *know* he "could have done it better". It sounds just too much like
> Dogma.
If you or I were given $200B to work with, I am sure we could come up with
something. Surgical strikes. Bribes. Etc.
So could Kerry.
>
>>>> Do you doubt the reports that:
>>>>
>>>> International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei reported the
>>>> disappearance to the U.N. Security Council on Monday, two weeks after he
>>>> said Iraq told the nuclear agency that the explosives had vanished from
>>>> the former Iraqi military installation as a result of "theft and looting
>>>> ... due to lack of security."
>>>
>>> Yes. Based on the methods that one would have to move these
>>> explosives, it's highly unlikely that they could be moved without
>>> detection in the past 2 weeks.
>>
>> Who suggested that they were moved in the last two weeks? Not even Drudge
>> is claiming that. :)
>
> Who is providing a credible model of when and how they could have been
> removed -- other than before the war?
Before or after the US took over? I have seen nothing that suggests it was
during the UN watch.
>
>>> The only likelihood is that they were removed before the war ever
>>> started.
>>
>> Before or after the US took responsibility from the UN over them?
>
> What exact date are you talking about?
Do not know the exact date. Heading to sleep soon... perhaps I can look it
up tomorrow. Whatever date the US took control.
>
>> if you
>> can show that the UN was the one responsible, then you will exonerate Bush.
>> Nothing leads me to that conclusion.
>>>
>>>> Seems Bush should have taken better care to reduce the chance of weapons
>>>> getting into unknown hands.
>>>
>>> It seems that Kerry is making an awful stretch to claim that these raw
>>> explosives have been used by anyone to make anything!
>>
>> Can you provide the quote where Kerry claims these weapons *have* been used?
>
> I believe his ad says that terrorists are using those weapons now. I
> need to go see this disgraceful ad.
OK. Let me know what you find. I think his ads are on his site.
Do you agree with all of Bush's ads?
>
>>>
>>>>> I just found an interesting ditty about the fitness of those
>>>>> stockpiles for IEDs -- or the lack thereof. I'll post that separately.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you. If there is evidence to show that Bush an co. were not
>>>> responsible for the poor security of those weapons I would like to see it.
>>>
>>> It gives you some insignt into these materials -- and how the
>>> allegations of Kerry and the NYT are highly doubtful.
>>>
>>> But that doesn't stop Kerry from making a new televison commercial
>>> about this!
>>>
>>> The person who admitted to committing War Crimes in a congressional
>>> hearing is now going off half-cocked again!
>>
>> If you are looking for someone to support the negative tone of presidential
>> campaigns, you will not find that someone in me.
>
> Yet you were the one who launched this thread here -- and kept the
> dubious title of the story as the title of this thread.
I often use the title of the story as the subject line... have a script that
does the work for me... select the text I want to quote... hit the script
button... and then do very little copy and paste... :)
Steve Carroll
Phil Earnhardt <p...@dim.com> wrote:
LOL! In Snit, you're conversing with this NG's biggest liar by far. No
wonder even John gave up on you:)
Phil Earnhardt
<dfritzi...@mac.com> wrote:
>> >> There is some ugly revisionism going on at the NYT. The liberal media
>> >> is in a Last Gasp Effort to try to alter this election.
>> >
>> >Umm, no, it is the conservatives and the Republicans that are doing
>> >the revisionism.
>>
>> References?
>
>Well, let's see... First Bush says the Iraq war is about WMD
Kerry talked about those same links -- using the same data -- in 2002.
> and ties
>between SH and OBL. Now, when those have gone away
You claim there was no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam?
>, it is about bringing
>freedom and democracy to the Middle East. That sort of thing.
Perhaps it had something to do with Saddam's failure to honor the
terms of the Gulf War Armistice? His shooting at US planes in the "no
fly zone"? Saddam's failure to comply with over a dozen UN
resolutions, including UN 1441: the "Last chance" resolution?
It had nothing to do with any of those?
>> >> The New York Times Fraud is not a small thing. As was the CBS News
>> >> Fraud about the forged documents.
>> >
>> >Sure, yell about the sources when you can't actually refute the story.
>>
>> Of course I can. CBS themselves apologized for the forged documents
>> that they represented as true. Did you miss that story?
>
>You do believe in changing the subject, don't you?
No. I think you just didn't read my words "CBS News Fraud" when you
replied about "can't actually refute the story".
> We were talking about
>the explosives in Iraq, not Bush's service in Texas.
I'm talking about the shameful behavior of the media in this election.
And it's related: CBS originally planned to announce this story on
Sunday before the election: before the real story could be sorted out
from the innuendo.
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644546.shtml
>>
>> That's what I mean when I ask for references.
Humor me: what's your 50-word response to the forged documents story?
Are you at all outraged?
>>
>> >> Are the liberals outraged at these iddy biddy teeny weeny factual
>> >> errors that are creeping up in the media?
>> >
>> >How about the conservatives being outraged about the lies from the
>> >Bush campaign.
>>
>> References?
<Nothing.>
>> > Such as the mischaracterization of Kerry's health care
>> >plan
>>
>> It's a huge regluatory nightmare.
>
>Too bad that isn't the mischaracterization I was talking about. And, I'm
>not sure Bush has mentioned your point. My point was about the times
>Bush has said Kerry's healthcare plan amounted to government takeover of
>the healthcare system, even after Kerry explained it in the third
>debate.
He claimed it wasn't. I have no confidence whatsoever that it could be
implemented without huge government intervention in the process.
In short: I'm unimpressed by the platitudes of Kerry.
>> And I have a fundamental question I have yet to hear anyone answer:
>>
>> If Kerry's plan is poor compared to what private employers provide,
>> how long will it take before people on that plan start complaining
>> about "Second-class medical care" and demand moer?
>>
>> If Kerry's plan is comparable to what private employers provide, why
>> will private employers keep offering this benefit? Why not just
>> improve the bottom line by dropping their health care?
>>
>> If Kerry is elected, this is going to be a huge program, and it will
>> only get larger as private health-care only becomes an afterthought.
>
>You might think about starting a different thread on this.
You might think of humoring us with 50 words of a reply. It really is
a pretty simple question.
>>
>> >, The taking out of context of Kerry's statements which make it
>> >look as if he wasn't changed by 9/11 when he actually very concerned
>> >about terrorism *before* 9/11 (unlike the Bushies).
>>
>> I'm more interested in Kerry's actions. Like how he voted against $6B
>> of intelligence funding after the first terrorist attack on the WTC.
>
>Reference?
$1.5B. My mistake.
http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=3946
>> Or how Kerry voted against the Gulf War -- how he thought that
>> diplomacy would somehow have Saddam remove himself from Kuwait.
>
>In hindsight, I believe he was wrong there. However, he is allowed to
>make a mistake.
Has he ever admitted that vote was a mistake?
I'm still waiting for someone to explain: exactly how would Kerry have
dealt with Saddam? How would he have gotten him removed from power?
Even with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I've never seen this
second-guessing spelled out.
>> > Or, the total lack
>> >of responsibility in the administration. People screw up left and
>> >right, and no one takes any responsibilty, or suffers any
>> >consequences.
>>
>> I have no idea what that means.
>
>Clearly, the CIA screwed up with the pre-war intelligence.
One wonders if the Senior members of the Senate Intelligence Committee
would like to take any responsibility there.
The US had a failing of its intelligence going back to the Carter
administration. And Clinton added some rules that were unworkable:
restrictions on the conduct of spies that were unworkable.
We had a *strategic* failure of our intelligence system: too much
reliance on electronics. That will take decades to fix.
> Yet, no one
>suffered. Clearly, Rumsfeld screwed up with the post-war planning for
>Iraq, yet he is still Secretary of Defense.
But every war will have screw-ups. And the timetables for the
reconstruction of Iraq are far quicker than the schedules for Germany
after WWII. And, despite the gloom and doom that the Demorats said
would happen, the hand-off to Iraqi officials over the summer was
quite smooth.
> Clearly, many screwups led
>to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal,
Not at all clear. How did you come to your conclusions?
>yet, with the exception of a few
>non-coms and PFC's, no one has paid.
What makes you think the abuses went much higher?
> And, in todays news we see the CIA
>removed prisoners from Iraq in direct contravention of the Geneva
>Accords. Yet, no one has paid.
I don't know about this.
>There is no accountability in this
>administration.
Gosh. That's my definition of a wild extrapolation!
>>
>> References?
>>
>> > Rumsfeld not putting enough troops in Iraq,
>>
>> That's disinformation by the Kerry campaign. Just like his
>> fear-mongering about a draft -- based on legislation introduced by
>> Democrats in January of 2003. Democrats who didn't even vote for their
>> own legislation (!) when it was put up for a vote. What a bunch of
>> manipulative fear-mongerers!
>
>Actually, it isn't. Bremer himself thought there should have been more
>troops in Iraq.
Did you read the WSJ editorial about that? Bremmer had multiple
chances to ask for more troops and failed to do that. He's pulling a
Clinton -- trying to make himself look good after the fact.
> But, nice try to at lying and spinning.
You failed to comment at all on the shameful demogaugery that the
Democrats tried to do around the non-issue of a draft!
>>
>> > the bad
>> >intelligence (or, lies, take your choice) leading up to the war in
>> >Iraq
>>
>> That's a strategic failure of intelligence -- a failure over years. A
>> failure that includes Bush Sr. and WJ Clinton.
>
>Yet, the Intel told the Bush administration that there was no yellowcake
>from Niger, and the aluminum tubes were not being used for the
>enrichment of uranium.
Yet yellowcake started showing up other places in the Middle East.
Interesting.
> Yet we still heard the stories. That suggests
>lies.
But doesn't prove any lies.
> However, if it was the intel that was so bad, why hasn't the CIA
>been cleaned out. As I said, no accountability in the administration.
>And, thank you for making my point.
You do quite well until you have these little snits at the end of your
statements. Why can't you just debte respectfully here?
>> >, misleading Congress on the cost of the Medicare drug plan, etc.
>> >Take your choice. Why aren't you outraged about all the lies and
>> >deception of this adminsitration?
>>
>> What's outrageous is that you characterize them as lies.
>
>Certainly, the administration lied about the cost of the Medicare bill.
>The chief controller of the Medicare system was threatened with firing
>if he told Congress of the true cost. So, that is a lie.
References?
>> What's outrageous is that you don't call Kerry a liar when he reported
>> on the danger of WMDs in Iraq -- using that same intelligence data.
>
>As you are wont to say, reference?
I'll look. Not now. I was listening to Rush while driving today; he
played the sound bite of Kerry hijmself saying it.
> And, even if Kerry thought Iraq had
>WMD, would he have gone in without better proof?
Kerry based his vote to approve the war on exactly the same intel.
> Sorry, but you are
>involved in some pretty slimy spinning here.
You do so well until you get to these slimy sentences at the end of
your postings. Cut it out, please.
>> What's outrageous about the Democrats is that I have yet to see a
>> single on who can reconcile Kerry's outrageous statements from his
>> book "The New Soldier" -- how they all attempt to ignore the book. How
>> the Democratic Legal Eagles have done everything they can to try to
>> burn that book.
>
>To tell the truth, I have no idea what you are talking about. Enlighten
>me if you will.
Do a google on "John Kerry" "The New Soldier".
This is the book that the Democrats have so obfuscated that even the
loyal democrats don't know about.
Make sure you do a search on images.google.com so you can see the
disgraceful cover of the book.
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
<dfritzi...@mac.com> wrote:
>> I keep wondering: if Senator John Kerry spoke about D-Day the way he
>> has been critiquing the Iraq War, exactly what would he have said?
>
>So, you're going to say the Iraq war has been a huge success, and no
>mistakes have been made?
I'm saying exactly the opposite: mistakes happen in every war. But we
had no personalities who were making running commentary
second-guessing our actions during WWII.
> That appears to be the mantra from Bush and
>company.
That's a straw man.
> Yet, every day, the news shows more and more mistakes.
It's a war!
> Heck,
>even Allawi (did I spell that right?) is blaming us for the massacre of
>the Iraqi soldiers.
He may even be right. Bad things happen in war. The enemy does
unexpected things.
But: I'm still waiting for someone to say: exactly how would Senator
John Kerry have gotten Saddam out of power?
AFAICT, if Kerry had ben our president: Saddam would still be in
power.
...but we would have a few more UN Resolutions. ;-(
>OK, not really blaming us, just saying we were negligent. Still, when he
>starts trying to put distance between his regime and the US, you know we
>are in trouble.
If Kerry has no scenario that would have gotten Saddam removed, I know
his second-guessing of Bush is intellectually bankrupt.
AFAICT, the best solution would have been to remove Saddam at the end
of the Gulf War. Saddam's wholesale corruption of the UN is one of the
true tragedies of the past decade.
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
<fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
>> >> Since the source -- or, at least, one principal source -- of this
>> >> story is the NYT, its correctness is seriously in doubt. After all,
>> >> the NYT failed to report on the Al Mada spreadsheet for months (!)
>> >> after the story was broken by the WSJ in the US.
>> >
>> >You keep running to that story as though it were related. I do not see the
>> >connection.
>>
>> It's just like Steve: if someone has a habit of lying, you need to be
>> skeptical about everything they say!
>
>LOL! In Snit, you're conversing with this NG's biggest liar by far. No
>wonder even John gave up on you:)
Steve: you just keep adding to your pile of conjectures and innuendo.
Did you get a building permit for that? It looks like it's come
crashing down ... several times already.
If all you have to contribute is innuendo, conjecture and insults,
would you mind moving it over to to e-mail. Thanks!
--phil
Lars Tr?ger
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:01:40 GMT, David Fritzinger
> <dfritzi...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Yet, every day, the news shows more and more mistakes.
>
> It's a war!
Yes, that was a mistake too.
Francis Burton
David Fritzinger <dfritzi...@mac.com> wrote:
>> One thing for certain... fear sells.
>
>Yeah, you are right. Fear is probably the only reason Bush is doing as
>well as he is. After all, they are the ones selling fear.
There is a TV series with an interesting thesis being aired on
the BBC these days called "The Power of Nightmares". Tonight:
"The Phantom Victory
Series exploring the idea that the threat of a terror network is a myth.
American Neoconservatives and radical Islamists come together to fight the
Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and both believe that it is they who have
defeated the Evil Empire and now have the power to transform the world.
But both fail in their revolutions.
In response, the Neoconservatives invent a new fantasy enemy, Bill Clinton
the depraved moral monster, to try and regain their power, while the
Islamists descend into a desperate cycle of violence and terror to try and
persuade the people to follow them.
Out of all this comes the seeds of the strange world of fantasy,
deception, violence and fear in which we now live."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3951615.stm
Francis
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
Then you need to paint a clear picture of what the alternative was.
How exactly would Senator John Kerry have gotten Saddam removed from
power? What exact steps would he have taken?
Why does Kerry never answer that question?
What European countries would have supported him? Note: France was
already moving to get *all* the sanctions lifted from Saddam's Iraq?
--phil
GreyCloud
Snit wrote:
>>Some people would think that just exploding high explosives near a nuke
>>would trigger a nuclear detonation.
>
>
> I am not one of those people. :)
>
I'm glad you understand.
>
>>A common myth. But in this instance, in Iraq, where are the nukes to be made
>>with this trigger? That would imply WMDs and we all know that they aren't
>>there, right?
>
>
> Not in Iraq... but they could be elsewhere... wherever the explosives now
> are.
Or buried... after all it is a big place.
But I too believe the stuff went elsewhere and out of country. But
before we got there along with a lot of other stuff. Tho there weren't
any nukes involved. Now maybe Iran would want the nuke triggers.
>
>>I'd suspect that the triggers went to Iran a long time ago, before our
>>troops entered bagdad.
>>
>>
>>>>> http://snipurl.com/a26c
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Which is why this fell under the UN. Without the nuclear material it is
>>>>just that... conventional. It seems that Iraq at one time was trying to
>>>>build a nuclear device. Iran is building their nuclear power plants for
>>>>supposedly peaceful means, but I'd wager a bit that they are the ones
>>>>that stole the detonator material.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>And how come people are going to blame Bush for the theft, if it was
>>>>>>indeed theft? He wasn't there guarding it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>His troops were... and he is the one ultimately in charge of where they are
>>>>>deployed and how effective they are. The US, under Bush, failed to keep
>>>>>secure a large and very dangerous cache of weaponry. While claiming to
>>>>>work
>>>>>to keep weapons out of the hands of the "evil doers", Bush seems to have
>>>>>essentially handed the "evil doers" a large amount of weapons. This is not
>>>>>a small thing.
>>>>
>>>>More like a military failure to guard the material. But then, this
>>>>apparent belief that if you are in charge that when anything goes wrong
>>>>you are the one responsible for the failure. Bush just as easily could
>>>>fire and demote those that didn't do their job too. These same people
>>>>could very well have been working for Kerry and still have the same
>>>>thing happen to him as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>For good or bad, as commander in chief, you are are responsible for the
>>>actions of the military. The military did not do its job.
>>
>>From what I've heard today, the missing high explosives were gone
>>before we even got there.
>
>
> From what I understand, they were being guarded by the UN. Had it not been
> for the actions of Bush, they would not have been lost.
>
Maybe, but the Iraqi nuclear program got bombed out by the Israelis
quite a while ago. Most likely, most of the stuff went to either Iran
or Syria.
I'd say that the story got published as a political tide turner.
The point is that it is moot that the stuff is gone.
>
>>Beware of the credibility of the NYT. The question now stands: Do we know
>>for sure if the explosives were gone before we got there? It seems to me that
>>the NYT fabricated another pre-election lie.
>
>
> Not sure it matters when Bush allowed the weapons to be stolen... unless it
> can be shown that they were stolen while under the UN watch, it would seem
> it was under Bush's watch.
It's only explosives. I don't see how anybody could have kept
terrorists away from it. If I recall tho, there was a large ammo dump
that was big enough to cause severe damage to bagdad and was slated for
demolition. Don't know if this is the one or not.
--
---------------------------------
Th3 G0ld3n Yrs Sux0r
GreyCloud
David Fritzinger wrote:
What I find more interesting is the fight to become president. If I
were that talented, why would I want to become president? Do you
realize that your butt is tagged and followed ever after by the secret
service? Not me!
So the question begs as to what is it that anyone would gain from this
struggle? It sure isn't power as I don't see it as power. More like a
lifetime of being a prisoner in your own country.
David Fritzinger
> <dfritzi...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> I keep wondering: if Senator John Kerry spoke about D-Day the way he
> >> has been critiquing the Iraq War, exactly what would he have said?
> >
> >So, you're going to say the Iraq war has been a huge success, and no
> >mistakes have been made?
>
> I'm saying exactly the opposite: mistakes happen in every war. But we
> had no personalities who were making running commentary
> second-guessing our actions during WWII.
>
> > That appears to be the mantra from Bush and
> >company.
>
> That's a straw man.
No, that is the truth. Has the current administration ever admitted
making a mistake. Bush certainly hasn't.
>
> > Yet, every day, the news shows more and more mistakes.
>
> It's a war!
One we never should have started, and one that has been incompetently
run from the time Saddam fell. A brief glance at the headlines on
almost any given day will tell you that. Unless, of course, you are a
blinded conservative.
>
> > Heck,
> >even Allawi (did I spell that right?) is blaming us for the massacre of
> >the Iraqi soldiers.
>
> He may even be right. Bad things happen in war. The enemy does
> unexpected things.
And, the US didn't prepare for any of the things they did, because
Bush, Rummy and company decided to run the war on the cheap. Remember
when we were told we would be down to <50,000 troops by now, and that
Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the reconstruction. Now, instead, we
hear that Bush will shortly ask Congress for yet another $75 billion
for Iraq.
>
> But: I'm still waiting for someone to say: exactly how would Senator
> John Kerry have gotten Saddam out of power?
I'm not sure the *US* is better off with Saddam out of power, to tell
the truth. Not with the way things appear to be shaping up in Iraq. Is
the possibility of a terrorist state, or a Shi'ite state aligned with
Iran better for the US? Yes, some day it will be better for the
Iraqis, and if we had done things correctly, it might even be better
now. But the administration is so incompetent they could screw up a
free lun ch.
>
> AFAICT, if Kerry had ben our president: Saddam would still be in
> power.
See above.
>
> ...but we would have a few more UN Resolutions. ;-(
Or, we might have even gotten the UN on our side, meaning we wouldn't
be paying for the entire war ourselves.
>
> >OK, not really blaming us, just saying we were negligent. Still, when he
> >starts trying to put distance between his regime and the US, you know we
> >are in trouble.
>
> If Kerry has no scenario that would have gotten Saddam removed, I know
> his second-guessing of Bush is intellectually bankrupt.
Nope. You are just making excuses for the incompetence of the Bush
administration. As I said, as far as the US is concerned, we would
probably be better off with a weakened Saddam still in power.
>
> AFAICT, the best solution would have been to remove Saddam at the end
> of the Gulf War. Saddam's wholesale corruption of the UN is one of the
> true tragedies of the past decade.
Bush I obviously disagrees with you.
--
Dave Fritzinger
>
> --phil
David Fritzinger
> On 26 Oct 2004 19:29:38 -0700, dfri...@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger)
> wrote:
>
> >> -- Begin quoted material --
> >>
> >> NBC News reported that on April 10, 2003, its crew was embedded with
> >> the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division when troops arrived at the Al
> >> Qaqaa storage facility south of Baghdad.
> >>
> >> While the troops found large stockpiles of conventional explosives,
> >> they did not find HMX or RDX, the types of powerful explosives that
> >> reportedly went missing, according to NBC.
> >>
> >> -- End quoted material --
> >
> >Gee, you cut my material without marking the cut, and inserted your
> >own, making it look as if I had nothing to back up what I was saying.
> >Now, why would you be so dishonest as to do that?
>
> My apologies. No deception was intended.
Accepted.
>
> >However, we also have this from the Boston Globe:
> >
> >http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/10/26/explosives_were_looted_after_iraq_invasion/
> >
> >And, I quote:
> >
> >UN nuclear official cites security lapse
>
> UN officials are not folk I have a lot of respect for right now. The
> Bush administration has lit a fire under them for their abuses in the
> "Food for Oil" program. I am confident that these UN officials would
> be far more comfortable if Bush were out of office.
>
> >Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
> >disclosed the security lapse to the UN Security Council yesterday
> >after receiving a letter from the Iraqi Ministry of Science and
> >Technology earlier this month that informed him of the loss and blamed
> >it on ''theft and looting of governmental installations due to lack of
> >security."
>
> I'd like to hear some direct commentary from the Iraqi officials.
Read the rest of the article. I believe they are there.
>
> >> >Note that the story, while in an admittedly biased site, contains
> >> >references from mainstream media sources. Sorry, but the
> >> >administration is lying.
> >>
> >> We shall see. This is the October Surprise. It is unfortunate for CBS
> >> News that they weren't allowed to wait to report this story on Sunday.
> >
> >And, it is too bad for the Bushies that this story shows yet another
> >example of the sheer, unmitigated incompetence of this administration.
>
> You are presuming that the stories is true.
Just about all the sources say it is. Even the original NBC story has
been shown to be wrong.
>
> You're awfully arrogant with your words. Can you answer the question:
> with perfect 20/20 hindsight, exactly how would Senator John Kerry
> have gotten Saddam removed from office.
See my other post from today in this thread.
>
> Do tell. Please spell out the details about how that would have
> happened.
>
> >> Unfortunately, there is plenty of time between now and Tuesday to sort
> >> this puppy out.
> >
> >Yup, and it don't look good for the Bushies.
>
> More arrogance. We shall see.
Yet, you weren't showing arrogance? It certainly appeared to me that
you were.
>
> It didn't look very good when 60 Minutes originally announced the
> forged documents they had, either.
The documents may have been wrong, but I've yet to see any evidence
that the meat of the story on Bush's service in the TANG was wrong.
>
> BTW: how upset were you that someone forged those documents and that
> CBS News was so lackadaisical in their failure to verify the
> forgeries?
They made a mistake, and they are suffering for it.
>
> > Meaning, it does look
> >better for the American People.
>
> You are most certainly entitled to your opinion. Diversity is the
> spice of life.
I only hope, for the future of our country, that most people wind up
agreeing with me.
--
Dave Fritzinger
GreyCloud
Phil Earnhardt wrote:
>
> I would like to know exactly how much work it would take for someone
> to take these raw explosives and make something out of them. As the
> expert says, there are far better sources.
>
I still find the whole report a bit moot. I see it as more of a
political stunt than anything else.
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
>>> I mentioned a report that happened to be on the NYT. You started focusing
>>> on your lack of trust for the NYT, and used, as part of your evidence the
>>> Drudge Report.
>>
>> ...and you used a smiley statement to attempt to discount the Drudge
>> Report.
>>
>>> I used to responses:
>>>
>>> - the Drudge report is not exactly an unbiased source
>>
>> Compared to the NYT?
>
>Both seem to be biased.
What evidence have you presented that Drudge is biased? You presented
evidence he got some information wrong, but I see no pattern of bias.
OTOH, I gave you a title about the NYT that presents a pattern of bias
for that paper. And I told you about one of the most important
international stories of the decade that the NYT failed to report for
months (!!) after the story was reported by another New York
newspaper.
A newspaper with a staff over 1,000 couldn't report anything at all
about the Al Mada spreadsheet. That demonstrates an extreme bias for
that newspaper -- a bias to fail to report on why a UNSC vote to
approve an invasion of Iraq was problematic.
And you also admitted that you haven't even heard about this story.
The really sad part: when the NYT doesn't talk, people don't listen.
You are ignorant of a hugely important story from the past decade. And
it's a far bigger story than the reason why a UNSC coalition was
problematic. It's about the UN's fading to insignificance in the
world. And because the NYT doesn't have that story on its agenda, many
thinking people in the free world don't even hear about it.
Do you care about any of this, Snit?
> It would be unwise to use either as a sole source
>of info.
That's a platitude.
As a practical matter, I'd recommend that you never ever again launch
a thread -- and entitle it -- based on a NYT article.
>>
>>> - in any case, we should use multiple sources. I provided them.
>>
>> You provided a bunch of wire service reports. And the Washington
>> report was an echo of the LA Times. I have no idea if the LA Times
>> report was simply a regurgitation of the NYT report.
>
>What about the AP... and even quotes from Cheney?
The quotes from Cheney have no meaning in this discussion.
PLEASE STOP TRYING TO CLAIM THAT THAT IS A SOURCE HERE. IT IS NOT.
His quote describes the problematic nature of Kerry's complaint. He
has never provided a credible case about how he would have gotten
Saddam out of power. All he's provided is a set of platitudes. Saddam
had already proven that he could stand up to UN platitudes just fine.
>> In short, we really have no idea how many distinct sources you
>> actually provided. All you did was go a Google-Dive.
>
>A quick dive that came up with many sources.
How many unique sources? How many of those were just regurgitation of
the NYT story?
Why do I keep having to ask you this question over and over?
>>>> I pointed out that the NYT has had a complete breakdown in reporting
>>>> news important to the world: they failed to report about the Al Mada
>>>> "Smoking Gun" for months (!) after the story was broken by someone
>>>> else.
>>>
>>> Ok. You pointed it out and I have not argued with it, and even stated I
>>> have no knowledge of it.
>>
>> Oh .... my .... God.
Have you done anything else in the mean time to educate yourself?
>>> I do not see it as being relevant to the missing
>>> explosives.
>>
>> It's one if the biggest stories of the dynamics with Iraq in the last
>> decade. It demonstrates the failure of the integrity of the UNSC.
>
>In your opinion.
Of course. And what is your opinion, Snit? What happens when you
examine the evidence of the smoking gun? What do you see?
What is your opinion informed by? Have you managed to take any time to
educate yourself about this story?
>> The NYT's failure to report on the story indicates that they really
>> have no intention on reporting of the truth about Iraq. And people
>> like you -- who are probably in the 99th percentile of literacy in
>> current events -- don't even know about it!
>
>You seem a bit... preoccupied with it.
Because it's pretty darn important! It may perhaps be more important
than a stockpile of raw explosives that was 1/10 of 1% of the total
explosives in Iraq.
But you're operating like an automaton of the NYT. They reported on
one story, and you should latch onto that. If the NYT doesn't report a
story, you should revel in your ignorance of it.
You talk about getting a variety of sources, Snit. Do you know that
lots of papers decide whether or not they'll cover something based on
whether or not the NYT covers it? And that applies to the wire
services, too?
Your google-diving counts may be giving you totally false information.
>> You don't want to look at the researched work about the nonsense of
>> reporting at the NYT; I gave you a quick (and disgusting) sample: the
>> NYT is not to be trusted on their stories. And you'd better be careful
>> that you're not getting an echo of a NYT story when reading from other
>> sources.
>
>Um. Ok.
What are you agreeing to here? Do you agree to stop claiming that
you've found multiple sources when you've failed to demonstrate that
at all?
> Care to talk about the 350 tons of explosives that went missing in
>Iraq under Bush's watch?
It's allegedly missing since the US invaded Iraq. No finding of fact
has been made. You know that.
I'd like to know what your research says could have been done with
this raw explosive. And how you think that the tons of this powder
could have been moved around. What is the possibility that IEDs are
actually being made with it.
>>>> Since the source -- or, at least, one principal source -- of this
>>>> story is the NYT, its correctness is seriously in doubt. After all,
>>>> the NYT failed to report on the Al Mada spreadsheet for months (!)
>>>> after the story was broken by the WSJ in the US.
>>>
>>> You keep running to that story as though it were related. I do not see the
>>> connection.
>>
>> It's just like Steve: if someone has a habit of lying, you need to be
>> skeptical about everything they say!
>
>I would not take Steve or the NYT's word alone. :)
Wrong. You used the NYT story alone as sufficient evidence to launch a
thread here. And you used their same October Surprise inflammatory
headline.
You act in exactly the same fashion that a loyal acolyte of the NYT
would act.
>You do know, of course, that Steve must really be enjoying out disagreement
>here. Let me point out that while you and I disagree, and may even think
>the other is missing important points, neither of us has suggested the other
>is a drug user, a sexual harasser, or a rapist.
Tee hee. Do you think he will now stop his ad hominem attacks?
> I wonder if Steve will
>understand that we are providing an example of a reasoned... or at least
>more reasoned... disagreement.
With all due respect, you only earn "more reasoned" if you go out an
educate yourself about the massive "Food for Oil" bribes and the
massive amount of suffering in Iraq from the theft of $10B+ that
should have been going to food and medicine for the Iraqis.
>>> I have. I have shown you many sources.
>>
>> You have not -- not with any degree of confidence. How many sources
>> did you actually show? How many of those sources are actually
>> newspapers? How many of them just regurgitated the story from the NYT?
>
>Even if they are just "regurgitating" the NYT story,
If they are, then your "I have" claim is just plain wrong.
Don't you even know?
> they seemed confident
>in it.
Bingo. It's part of the insidious and lazy nature of the media. Local
editors will run a story because the NYT ran it. And, even more sadly,
they won't run with a story because the NYT didn't run it.
And, BTW, at least one of your sources didn't even appear to be a
newspaper!
> You have attacked the NYT as being biased... do you think all the
>newspapers who agree with their story are equally untrustworthy?
You seemed quite arrogant when I have told you snippets about the Al
Mada story. You gave me an arrogant "in your opinion" earlier in this
thread.
I am at a total loss to reconcile the failure of the American media to
research and report the Al Mada story. Why there wasn't a huge cry
from the humanitarian community about the massive theft of aid from
the Iraqi people. Why so few people have expressed outrage over both
the bribes and other things that Saddam purchased with those funds.
As far as I can tell, a whole lot of media types have been
conveniently looking the other way.
I cannot explain this. I don't think these people are fundamentally
evil, but I do think they have become complacent in their jobs. TO be
fair: it's tough working in smaller-market newspapers and it's awfully
seductive to abdicate their responsibility to a larger publisher.
I applaud the WSJ for their ability to buck the trend and report on
this story.
>>>> You are still taking the NYT story on face value. Why are you doing
>>>> that?
>>>
>>> I am looking at many more sources
>>
>> Allow me to shout: HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU ARE?
>
>Not sure I could have prevented it.
Then you should retract your conjecture that you were "looking at many
more sources." If you failed to do your due diligence to verify that
those aren't simply echoes of the NYT story, you had no business
making that claim.
Snit: you got complacent. Just like all those smaller newspapers
around the US of A seem to be doing.
A good start on curing the complacency would be to research the Al
Mada story.
>> Which of those sources actually researched the story themselves? I could not
>> tell, but I could tell you were sloppy: the Longview, WA paper was just a
>> re-hash of an LA Times story (which might well have been a re-hash of someone
>> else -- you'd have to look at the LA Times in order to tell).
>
>I quoted at least three separate sources: the AP, the NYT, and Cheney.
Cheney was not a source. He was simply asking a question: how would
Kerry have actually delivered on getting Saddam removed from power?
How is it that you know the AP article was an independent source?
> All
>agree
That is, at most, two sources.
> that had it not been for Bush, the US and the world would know where
>those weapons are.
They do not. That is not what Cheney was saying.
And you failed to demonstrate that the AP story is actually from a
separate source.
Rather than repeat the same old tired -- and wrong -- claim about
Cheney's statement, you may need to do some real work on this, Snit.
>>> - some of which I have shared with you.
>>
>> You pretty clearly google-dived and you didn't qualify your results.
Are you starting to understand the insidious nature of google-diving
and failing to qualify your results?
>>> Why insist this only comes from the NYT? What about the AP? What about VP
>>> Cheney! I quoted both of them, among others.
>>
>> Please. The Cheney quote was not a source. Cheney just pointed out the
>> obvious: that Senator John Kerry has failed to *ever* spell out --
>> with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight -- how the hell he would have
>> gotten Saddam out of power.
>
>Part of his claim was that if Bush had not gone into Iraq we would know
>where the weapons in question are.
His point was that we would know *who* was in control of those raw
explosives: Saddam. That was Cheney's sole point!
You have wildly extrapolated something into Cheney's comment that is
simply not there.
>You seem to feel the loss of the weapons was a reasonable price to pay (or,
>really, part of the price to pay).
When did raw explosives semantically slip to weapons in this
discussion?
Also, it's an alleged loss. From someone who absurdly cites Cheney's
statement as "evidence" of the loss, you need to get over this
confusion.
We paid a huge price by giving Saddam month after month during
"diplomacy". All sorts of things got shipped in and out of the country
during that time. And we still get the platitudes from Kerry: there
should have been "more diplomacy". But Kerry never ever says what
would have been accomplished by that "more diplomacy".
You seem to imply there was a better alternative to taking out Saddam.
What exactly are you suggesting?
Kerry is too much of a coward to tell us. Can you enlighten us? What
would have worked?
>> Please. Ad hominem is attacking the source: "Oscar is an idiot." It's
>> completely different to question a source because they have a history
>> of manipulating the news in their publication.
>
>Oscar is an idiot. therefore everything he says is false.
>The NYT is a biased organization, therefore everything they post is false.
Bingo. They're not the same thing. I am questioning the NYT times
baseed on their past performance, not on some label.
>Not so different.
Of course they are. By your logic, judging the behavior of a business
by its past performance is an ad hominem attack.
"I shouldn't avoid that restaurant because I got lousy service the
last time I was there. That would be an ad hominem attack."
I gave you a book that describes the patterns of abuse at the NYT. You
chose to ignore it.
>How about the AP?
Have you qualified that source?
> Cheney?
Not a source. Cheney was simply commenting that in Kerry's world
Saddam would still be in power. You have extrapolated and contorted
that statement.
> They seem to agree - had Bush not attacked Iraq,
>the world would know where the weapons are today.
You miss the point. They would know *who* was in control of those
weapons: Saddam.
>>>> Is there a name for a logical fallacy where you attempt to take
>>>> stories from a dubious source as the gospel source?
>>>
>>> Not that I know of. Why do you ask?
>>
>> Because that's what you do when you cite the NYT!
>
>You are still acting as if I have only one source. May I ask why?
By your own admission, you have failed to qualify your sources. You
just did a google-dive. You have no way of knowing if they're just
echoes of the same NYT article.
>>> Keep in mind that I have looked at
>>> many sources for my information, including VP Cheney.
>>
>> See above. You are NOT citing Cheney. He is pointing out the obvious:
>> that Kerry has never ever spelled out -- even with 20/20 hindsight --
>> how he would have possibly removed Saddam from Iraq.
>
>The fact that Cheney *also* stated things in addition to his claims about
>Bush losing the weapons is not a part of the conversation. Cheney stated:
>
> It is not at all clear that those explosives were even at the weapons
> facility when our troops arrived in the area of Baghdad,
Bingo. And you have extrapolated that to mean something else entirely
different.
>Now if there is evidence to suggest the weapons were gone before the US took
>over from the UN, please provide it.
What exact time are you talking about? Can you provide a timeline?
>>>> The thing the story fails to inform: how could one take that raw
>>>> explosive and make an IED? See my separate posting about that.
>>>
>>> Seems you are moving from the idea that the weapons loss was not Bush's
>>> fault to accepting that it at least may have been - but then discounting the
>>> importance of the loss.
>>
>> I'm saying: even if the raw explosives were still there: how does
>> Kerry know that they could have possibly been used for IEDs?
>
>My guess: such weapons can be used for such things.
You again are calling the raw explosives "weapons". Why?
Of course they can be altered. But the article strongly indicates that
IEDs are much more easily made by scavenging from things like mortar
shells.
>> What the hell is he basing that on?
We have no idea at all. But Senator John Kerry must somehow know that
these raw explosives could easily be used by the terrorists in Iraq.
We know: because falsely making the claim woudl be fear-mongering.
>> Just like: how the hell -- with 20/20 hindsight -- would Senator John
>> Kerry have gotten Saddam removed from office? Especially in light of
>> the Al Mada corruption giving strong evidence that at least one UNSC
>> seat had been compromised by Saddam.
>
>Please provide that evidence.
Finally! Snit expresses some interest in the Al Mada scandal!
I already provided the reference earlier:
If you want to get educated, you should also read the book:
The French Betrayal of America.
>>>>> Vice President Dick Cheney says 400-thousand tons of explosives
>>>>> would be in Saddam Hussein's hands if the U-S had not invaded Iraq.
>>>>
>>>> It points to a major failing of Kerry: he can't describe how he
>>>> possibly would have gotten UNSC consensus to remove Saddam from power.
>>>
>>> That is not the topic of this conversation.
>>
>> It's just more of Kerry's second guessing.
>
>I get it. You hate Kerry.
No. And you miss the point.
Kerry has conjectured that there was some way to get global consensus
on Saddam. But he conveniently neglects to anser the question: exactly
what was UN 1441? And, since Iraq is in material breach of that
agreement, why didn't the UNSC promptly approve a measure to invade
Iraq.
What part of "last chance" did those members not understand?
The simple explanation: some UNSC members had no intenet of approving
an invasion of Iraq; their approval of UN 1441 was simply to delay the
invasion further.
>> And I'm asking the mother of all second-guessing: that Senator John
>> Kerry could somehow have removed Saddam from power in a "better" way.
>
>Perhaps. We will never know.
It's far worse than that. He gives us the platitude he would have
"done it better" but he never ever specifies any details of this
hypothetical. It has no grounding in reality.
> I hope we get a chance to see how he is as a
>president.
Given his failure to flesh them out, I'm somewhat frightened by people
who blindly accept Kerry's platitudes.
Do you blindly accept Kerry's platitude that he could have "done
better" in Iraq?
>>> I am not defending Kerry
>>
>> Have you seen the disgraceful advertisement the DNC has already
>> released about this alleged incident?
>
>Not sure which ad you mean.
Just google-dive news.google.com for "new kerry ad missing weapons"
>>> , I am
>>> pointing out how Bush's actions seem to have lead to the loss of tons of
>>> explosives.
>>
>> Read what the explosive expert said! How do you think those hundreds
>> of tons could have possibly been moved? A few hundred trucks cruising
>> in and out? Perhaps they put it in their thermoses every day?
>
>Are you suggesting that they are still there? That they never existed?
I'm trying to see if the claim that the weapons were there after the
troops applied in Baghdad has the ring of truth.
I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind the claim that they were
taken later. To see if such claims have the ring of truth.
I'm tryint to think how hundreds of specialized trucks could go in and
out of the stockpile to remove it later.
Doesn't that image intrigue you, too?
>> The point: the story of moving those raw explosives after the war just
>> doesn't have the ring of truth.
>
>Do you think they were moved during the UN's watch?
Please present the timeline for what you're talking about.
>>>> This goes full circle to the Al Mada question: given the strong
>>>> evidence that UNSC seats had been corrupted by Saddam, how would there
>>>> ever be a UNSC vote to agree to the election?
>>>
>>> If the US can not keep its treaties, it should pull out of them.
>>
>> And if UNSC members can't keep their seats from being bought, they
>> should remove their country from the UNSC.
No comment at all?
>> Snit: this is why you need to get yourself educated about the Al Mada
>> bribes. You really have no standing to say anything at all about the
>> UN unless you're current on the corruption which has [allegedly]
>> happened there ... all the way to Kofi Annan.
>
>Then the US should pull out.
That's a simplistic knee-jerk response.
Ironically, since we now understand the nature of the corruption of
the UN, we're far better off staying there.
>>>> This is a bizzare rhetorical argument. Cheney was simply pointing out
>>>> that Kerry has never ever told us how he would have gotten Saddam
>>>> removed from power.
>>>
>>> In his comments Cheney admitted that we would know where the weapons were if
>>> if had not been for Bush.
>>
>> No. This is just a silly rhetorical position you are taking. You
>> completely misunderstood Cheney's statements.
>>
>> Cheney's statements were a resonse to Kerry's second-guessing. All
>> Dick is doing is pointing to the mother of all of Kerry's
>> second-guessing -- and his failure to "fill in the dots".
>
>He does make other points. But that does not mean he did not make the point
>I talk about.
It means that you inferred something in Cheney's statement that is
simply not there.
>>> Seems you are accepting that it is Bush's fault,
>>> but feel it is a justifiable error. Is that correct?
>>
>> The story just doesn't have the ring of truth, Snit. See above.
>
>Show support that the weapons either never existed or moved during the UN
>watch.
One more time: please provide your timeline so everyone knows what
(and when) you are talking about.
>>
>>>> Could you paint a credible hypothetical how this was going to happen?
>>>> No, I didn't think so!
>>
>> I really wish you would take a stab at this. Unless someone can
>> explain how Kerry would have removed Saddam, I have no idea how they
>> *know* he "could have done it better". It sounds just too much like
>> Dogma.
>
>If you or I were given $200B to work with, I am sure we could come up with
>something. Surgical strikes. Bribes. Etc.
THen you should be able to spell out at least two our three likely
scenarios that would have worked.
How about one?
Kerry's never bee able to tell us. All we get from him is the
platitude that he would have done it "better". All amazingly vague
promise, but no delivery.
BTW: why do you think that congress would ever have funded $200B for
such an effort?
>So could Kerry.
He cannot. All he delivers is a platitude.
>>> Who suggested that they were moved in the last two weeks? Not even Drudge
>>> is claiming that. :)
>>
>> Who is providing a credible model of when and how they could have been
>> removed -- other than before the war?
>
>Before or after the US took over? I have seen nothing that suggests it was
>during the UN watch.
Please provide your timeline.
>>>> The only likelihood is that they were removed before the war ever
>>>> started.
>>>
>>> Before or after the US took responsibility from the UN over them?
>>
>> What exact date are you talking about?
>
>Do not know the exact date. Heading to sleep soon... perhaps I can look it
>up tomorrow. Whatever date the US took control.
Provide your entire timeline, please.
>>
>>> if you
>>> can show that the UN was the one responsible, then you will exonerate Bush.
>>> Nothing leads me to that conclusion.
>>>>
>>>>> Seems Bush should have taken better care to reduce the chance of weapons
>>>>> getting into unknown hands.
>>>>
>>>> It seems that Kerry is making an awful stretch to claim that these raw
>>>> explosives have been used by anyone to make anything!
>>>
>>> Can you provide the quote where Kerry claims these weapons *have* been used?
>>
>> I believe his ad says that terrorists are using those weapons now. I
>> need to go see this disgraceful ad.
>
>OK. Let me know what you find. I think his ads are on his site.
Haven't found macplayable version of the ad yet.
>Do you agree with all of Bush's ads?
I've not seen anything so disgraceful as Kerry's campaign of
platitudes-without-substance about how he would have gotten Saddam
removed from power. The second-guessing without providing a single
real alternative is quite sad.
Neither Kerry -- nor his followers -- have ever been able to paint a
credible picture how Saddam could have been removed. Nor have they
painted a credible picture about how the UNSC would have ever given
consent for invading Iraq.
Doesn't that lack of substance bother you?
>>>> The person who admitted to committing War Crimes in a congressional
>>>> hearing is now going off half-cocked again!
>>>
>>> If you are looking for someone to support the negative tone of presidential
>>> campaigns, you will not find that someone in me.
>>
>> Yet you were the one who launched this thread here -- and kept the
>> dubious title of the story as the title of this thread.
>
>I often use the title of the story as the subject line...
Then perhaps you should re-consider that practice and take
resonsibility for the subject lines of your message.
> have a script that
>does the work for me... select the text I want to quote... hit the script
>button... and then do very little copy and paste... :)
Maybe it's time to alter the script.
I like one volunteered name for all the bruhaha over this:
NYTrogate.
--phil
Steve Carroll
Phil Earnhardt <p...@dim.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:54:56 GMT, Steve Carroll
> <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <lajtn0p79de3f1icl...@4ax.com>,
> > Phil Earnhardt <p...@dim.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:23:20 GMT, Steve Carroll
> >> <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> My personal favorite (well after this book was published): over the
> >> >> last year: in February, the Wall Street Journal broke the story in the
> >> >> US about the Al Mada spreadsheet documenting the recepients of bribes
> >> >> from the "Oil for Food" program. They presented a well-researched
> >> >> detailed story.
> >> >>
> >> >> Did you read it at the time?
> >> >
> >> >Gee, Phil... Snit actually asked a question that was relevant to what he
> >> >was discussing for a change. Was there a particular reason that you
> >> >showed your hypocritical colors and avoided it:)
> >>
> >> You are right: Snit ignored the question; I asked it again.
> >
> >Was that your attempt to prove you have a reading disability? Good job,
> >Phil... very effective.
>
> Thank you. Snit has since spoken about the question.
That Snit has realized the depth of your reading disability to the point
where he has spoken about it holds no particular relevance here. I am
pointing out that Snit asked you a question and you avoided it, yet, you
make assumptions based off of others when you *feel* they have avoided
your questions. This makes you a hypocrite. Do try to follow along,
won't you?
> >> If he continues to ignore it, his failure to respond might become an
> >> issue.
> >
> >Non sequitur.
> >
> >> You failed to answer my questions in at least a half-dozen postings
> >> before I concluded that you had no interest whatsoever in answering
> >> them.
> >
> >So then... you are admitting you are a hypocrite.
>
> Hardly. I'm saying I didn't pass judgment on you after one posting,
> and I won't do that with Snit, either.
Non sequitur. Are you admitting that you are a hypocrite? It does you
little good to deny it when I have provided objective evidence that
*proves* the fact.
> >.. that's great...
> >overcoming denial is a big step.
>
> You came to an inappropriate conclusion.
>
> >> For now, I'll give Snit the benefit of the doubt.
> >>
> >> Do you understand the difference?
> >
> >Yes, I understand that you will ask of other what you won't do
> >yourself... it's very clear now.
>
> I gave you the benefit of the doubt, too -- until you continued to
> fail to answer the questions.
Your delusion that I failed to answer your questions no more proves I
did what you claimed then did your subjective conclusion based on Snit's
information that didn't prove a thing (other than the fact that I posted
to usenet at certain times, though, even that may be manipulated).
> >
> >> >> All seriousness aside: the Pentagon has commented in detail on these
> >> >> reports already. It's not the President's job to comment on the
> >> >> mis-reportings of the American Media. He didn't comment on the fake
> >> >> memos that "60 Minutes" reported and defended as accurate, either.
> >> >
> >> >"All seriousness aside"?? Glue good today...
> >>
> >> Steve: please stop immediately in your allegations that I am using
> >> substances illegally.
> >
> >Do you understand the difference between alluding to something and
> >making an allegation, Phil?
>
> No. I have no tolerance for your innuendo, Steve. It has no point in
> any pubic discussion here.
I care not for your tolerance. Your illiteracy has a place in a " pubic
discussion", Phil... particularly where you have leveled a charge at
someone with nothing more than what you have. You are responsible for
making such a charge publicly... and I will make sure you are thoroughly
involved in trying to prove that charge or drop it... in every thread I
feel the opportunity arises. And I have LOTS of time to post... ask
Snit:)
Snit
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:25:40 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>>>> I mentioned a report that happened to be on the NYT. You started focusing
>>>> on your lack of trust for the NYT, and used, as part of your evidence the
>>>> Drudge Report.
>>>
>>> ...and you used a smiley statement to attempt to discount the Drudge
>>> Report.
>>>
>>>> I used to responses:
>>>>
>>>> - the Drudge report is not exactly an unbiased source
>>>
>>> Compared to the NYT?
>>
>> Both seem to be biased.
>
> What evidence have you presented that Drudge is biased? You presented
> evidence he got some information wrong, but I see no pattern of bias.
Each of his "mistakes" just happened to be for the benefit of the right
wing... unlikely.
>
> OTOH, I gave you a title about the NYT that presents a pattern of bias
> for that paper. And I told you about one of the most important
> international stories of the decade that the NYT failed to report for
> months (!!) after the story was reported by another New York
> newspaper.
Who else did? You have not supported the idea of a bias on the part of the
NYT... though you have mentioned a book you claim does so.
>
> A newspaper with a staff over 1,000 couldn't report anything at all
> about the Al Mada spreadsheet. That demonstrates an extreme bias for
> that newspaper -- a bias to fail to report on why a UNSC vote to
> approve an invasion of Iraq was problematic.
I do not share your... enthusiasm for this particular story.
>
> And you also admitted that you haven't even heard about this story.
> The really sad part: when the NYT doesn't talk, people don't listen.
The NYT does not have a monopoly on my news.
>
> You are ignorant of a hugely important story from the past decade. And
> it's a far bigger story than the reason why a UNSC coalition was
> problematic. It's about the UN's fading to insignificance in the
> world. And because the NYT doesn't have that story on its agenda, many
> thinking people in the free world don't even hear about it.
Who do you think does have a story on this?
>
> Do you care about any of this, Snit?
Not as much as you do.
>
>> It would be unwise to use either as a sole source
>> of info.
>
> That's a platitude.
>
> As a practical matter, I'd recommend that you never ever again launch
> a thread -- and entitle it -- based on a NYT article.
I will take that under advisement.
>
>>>
>>>> - in any case, we should use multiple sources. I provided them.
>>>
>>> You provided a bunch of wire service reports. And the Washington
>>> report was an echo of the LA Times. I have no idea if the LA Times
>>> report was simply a regurgitation of the NYT report.
>>
>> What about the AP... and even quotes from Cheney?
>
> The quotes from Cheney have no meaning in this discussion.
They do. They support the point that the weapons were lost under Bush's
watch.
>
> PLEASE STOP TRYING TO CLAIM THAT THAT IS A SOURCE HERE. IT IS NOT.
Your yelling does not decrease my likelihood of posting information.
>
> His quote describes the problematic nature of Kerry's complaint. He
> has never provided a credible case about how he would have gotten
> Saddam out of power. All he's provided is a set of platitudes. Saddam
> had already proven that he could stand up to UN platitudes just fine.
I do not deny that Cheney also made other claims in the same statement.
Those other claims are not relevant to the discussion.
>
>>> In short, we really have no idea how many distinct sources you
>>> actually provided. All you did was go a Google-Dive.
>>
>> A quick dive that came up with many sources.
>
> How many unique sources? How many of those were just regurgitation of
> the NYT story?
>
> Why do I keep having to ask you this question over and over?
>
>>>>> I pointed out that the NYT has had a complete breakdown in reporting
>>>>> news important to the world: they failed to report about the Al Mada
>>>>> "Smoking Gun" for months (!) after the story was broken by someone
>>>>> else.
>>>>
>>>> Ok. You pointed it out and I have not argued with it, and even stated I
>>>> have no knowledge of it.
>>>
>>> Oh .... my .... God.
>
> Have you done anything else in the mean time to educate yourself?
About this unrelated issue... no.
>
>>>> I do not see it as being relevant to the missing
>>>> explosives.
>>>
>>> It's one if the biggest stories of the dynamics with Iraq in the last
>>> decade. It demonstrates the failure of the integrity of the UNSC.
>>
>> In your opinion.
>
> Of course. And what is your opinion, Snit? What happens when you
> examine the evidence of the smoking gun? What do you see?
I have not examined it. I am staying focused, at least in this thread, with
the topic of the thread.
>
> What is your opinion informed by? Have you managed to take any time to
> educate yourself about this story?
No.
>
>>> The NYT's failure to report on the story indicates that they really
>>> have no intention on reporting of the truth about Iraq. And people
>>> like you -- who are probably in the 99th percentile of literacy in
>>> current events -- don't even know about it!
>>
>> You seem a bit... preoccupied with it.
>
> Because it's pretty darn important! It may perhaps be more important
> than a stockpile of raw explosives that was 1/10 of 1% of the total
> explosives in Iraq.
It may be more important, but it is not the topic of this thread.
>
> But you're operating like an automaton of the NYT. They reported on
> one story, and you should latch onto that. If the NYT doesn't report a
> story, you should revel in your ignorance of it.
You keep repeating this as though repetition will lead to greater support
from me.
I want you to understand a few things:
- in this thread I am not interested in looking at that question.
- the NYT is not my only source for news
- I am not convinced that the NYT is as bad as you think it is
- all information, not just from the NYT, leads to the conclusion that
the weapons went missing under the watch of Bush. I hold it possible
that they went missing prior to that - under the watch of the UN. I
find this unlikely given the information provided.
>
> You talk about getting a variety of sources, Snit. Do you know that
> lots of papers decide whether or not they'll cover something based on
> whether or not the NYT covers it? And that applies to the wire
> services, too?
Do you think they are all blind to what you see? Do you think their staff
is as biased as the NYT? How do you explain this apparent massive
conspiracy?
>
> Your google-diving counts may be giving you totally false information.
>
>>> You don't want to look at the researched work about the nonsense of
>>> reporting at the NYT; I gave you a quick (and disgusting) sample: the
>>> NYT is not to be trusted on their stories. And you'd better be careful
>>> that you're not getting an echo of a NYT story when reading from other
>>> sources.
>>
>> Um. Ok.
>
> What are you agreeing to here? Do you agree to stop claiming that
> you've found multiple sources when you've failed to demonstrate that
> at all?
I have pointed to at least three - even using your definition that I find
questionable.
>
>> Care to talk about the 350 tons of explosives that went missing in
>> Iraq under Bush's watch?
>
> It's allegedly missing since the US invaded Iraq. No finding of fact
> has been made. You know that.
I have not seen anything that leads me to be able to say with 100% certainty
that they were there when the US took over for the UN. It does seem likely
however.
>
> I'd like to know what your research says could have been done with
> this raw explosive. And how you think that the tons of this powder
> could have been moved around. What is the possibility that IEDs are
> actually being made with it.
I do not know how it disappeared. Not sure anyone does... other than those
who took it.
>
>>>>> Since the source -- or, at least, one principal source -- of this
>>>>> story is the NYT, its correctness is seriously in doubt. After all,
>>>>> the NYT failed to report on the Al Mada spreadsheet for months (!)
>>>>> after the story was broken by the WSJ in the US.
>>>>
>>>> You keep running to that story as though it were related. I do not see the
>>>> connection.
>>>
>>> It's just like Steve: if someone has a habit of lying, you need to be
>>> skeptical about everything they say!
>>
>> I would not take Steve or the NYT's word alone. :)
>
> Wrong. You used the NYT story alone as sufficient evidence to launch a
> thread here. And you used their same October Surprise inflammatory
> headline.
Why do you ignore and discount the other sources I have brought up, such as
the AP and Cheney?
>
> You act in exactly the same fashion that a loyal acolyte of the NYT
> would act.
This claim of yours is becoming tiresome.
>
>> You do know, of course, that Steve must really be enjoying out disagreement
>> here. Let me point out that while you and I disagree, and may even think
>> the other is missing important points, neither of us has suggested the other
>> is a drug user, a sexual harasser, or a rapist.
>
> Tee hee. Do you think he will now stop his ad hominem attacks?
No. A very, very strong no. Steve will not stop.
>
>> I wonder if Steve will
>> understand that we are providing an example of a reasoned... or at least
>> more reasoned... disagreement.
>
> With all due respect, you only earn "more reasoned" if you go out an
> educate yourself about the massive "Food for Oil" bribes and the
> massive amount of suffering in Iraq from the theft of $10B+ that
> should have been going to food and medicine for the Iraqis.
Perhaps I will... but not in the context of this discussion. For that
matter, information on that is not required to hold a reasoned discussion on
the lost weapons. It is not a reasonable thing to do to tie the two
together.
>
>>>> I have. I have shown you many sources.
>>>
>>> You have not -- not with any degree of confidence. How many sources
>>> did you actually show? How many of those sources are actually
>>> newspapers? How many of them just regurgitated the story from the NYT?
>>
>> Even if they are just "regurgitating" the NYT story,
>
> If they are, then your "I have" claim is just plain wrong.
Except I have pointed to other sources, even the VP.
>
> Don't you even know?
>
>> they seemed confident
>> in it.
>
> Bingo. It's part of the insidious and lazy nature of the media. Local
> editors will run a story because the NYT ran it. And, even more sadly,
> they won't run with a story because the NYT didn't run it.
Why do you think this is? Do you think that you, and you alone, see this
NYT bias?
>
> And, BTW, at least one of your sources didn't even appear to be a
> newspaper!
>
>> You have attacked the NYT as being biased... do you think all the
>> newspapers who agree with their story are equally untrustworthy?
>
> You seemed quite arrogant when I have told you snippets about the Al
> Mada story. You gave me an arrogant "in your opinion" earlier in this
> thread.
It is an irrelevant story to this discussion...
>
> I am at a total loss to reconcile the failure of the American media to
> research and report the Al Mada story. Why there wasn't a huge cry
> from the humanitarian community about the massive theft of aid from
> the Iraqi people. Why so few people have expressed outrage over both
> the bribes and other things that Saddam purchased with those funds.
How does that relate to the lost weapons?
>
> As far as I can tell, a whole lot of media types have been
> conveniently looking the other way.
>
How does that relate to the lost weapons?
> I cannot explain this. I don't think these people are fundamentally
> evil, but I do think they have become complacent in their jobs. TO be
> fair: it's tough working in smaller-market newspapers and it's awfully
> seductive to abdicate their responsibility to a larger publisher.
>
> I applaud the WSJ for their ability to buck the trend and report on
> this story.
>
>>>>> You are still taking the NYT story on face value. Why are you doing
>>>>> that?
>>>>
>>>> I am looking at many more sources
>>>
>>> Allow me to shout: HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU ARE?
>>
>> Not sure I could have prevented it.
>
> Then you should retract your conjecture that you were "looking at many
> more sources." If you failed to do your due diligence to verify that
> those aren't simply echoes of the NYT story, you had no business
> making that claim.
AP. Cheney. Not NYT.
>
> Snit: you got complacent. Just like all those smaller newspapers
> around the US of A seem to be doing.
>
> A good start on curing the complacency would be to research the Al
> Mada story.
How does that relate to the lost weapons?
>
>>> Which of those sources actually researched the story themselves? I could not
>>> tell, but I could tell you were sloppy: the Longview, WA paper was just a
>>> re-hash of an LA Times story (which might well have been a re-hash of
>>> someone
>>> else -- you'd have to look at the LA Times in order to tell).
>>
>> I quoted at least three separate sources: the AP, the NYT, and Cheney.
>
> Cheney was not a source.
I disagree. He made comments that were relevant to the question.
> He was simply asking a question: how would
> Kerry have actually delivered on getting Saddam removed from power?
He did more than ask that question.
>
> How is it that you know the AP article was an independent source?
How is it you know it is not. I would assume it shares a source with the
NYT, but have no reason to think it is merely parroting the NYT.
>
>> All
>> agree
>
> That is, at most, two sources.
>
>> that had it not been for Bush, the US and the world would know where
>> those weapons are.
>
> They do not. That is not what Cheney was saying.
Have you read the quote I provided from him?
>
> And you failed to demonstrate that the AP story is actually from a
> separate source.
>
> Rather than repeat the same old tired -- and wrong -- claim about
> Cheney's statement, you may need to do some real work on this, Snit.
>
>>>> - some of which I have shared with you.
>>>
>>> You pretty clearly google-dived and you didn't qualify your results.
>
> Are you starting to understand the insidious nature of google-diving
> and failing to qualify your results?
>
>>>> Why insist this only comes from the NYT? What about the AP? What about VP
>>>> Cheney! I quoted both of them, among others.
>>>
>>> Please. The Cheney quote was not a source. Cheney just pointed out the
>>> obvious: that Senator John Kerry has failed to *ever* spell out --
>>> with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight -- how the hell he would have
>>> gotten Saddam out of power.
>>
>> Part of his claim was that if Bush had not gone into Iraq we would know
>> where the weapons in question are.
>
> His point was that we would know *who* was in control of those raw
> explosives: Saddam. That was Cheney's sole point!
Right... had it not been for Bush, we would know where those weapons are.
Now, realistically, if there had been another president who took another
approach we can not know... but the point is that it was Bush who lead to
the loss of those weapons.
You may feel it was a reasonable price to pay, but there is no doubt that
Cheney is saying that Bush lead to that loss...
>
> You have wildly extrapolated something into Cheney's comment that is
> simply not there.
Let me ask you a couple of questions, based on Cheney's comments and what we
know of the story:
- Do we know where the explosives are now? Do we know who controls them?
- If Bush had not attacked Iraq, would we know where they were... and who
controlled them?
>> You seem to feel the loss of the weapons was a reasonable price to pay (or,
>> really, part of the price to pay).
>
> When did raw explosives semantically slip to weapons in this
> discussion?
Ok... explosives.
>
> Also, it's an alleged loss. From someone who absurdly cites Cheney's
> statement as "evidence" of the loss, you need to get over this
> confusion.
Where would those weapons be if not for Bush? Where are they now?
>
> We paid a huge price by giving Saddam month after month during
> "diplomacy". All sorts of things got shipped in and out of the country
> during that time. And we still get the platitudes from Kerry: there
> should have been "more diplomacy". But Kerry never ever says what
> would have been accomplished by that "more diplomacy".
I understand you disagree with the war. That is not the topic.
>
> You seem to imply there was a better alternative to taking out Saddam.
> What exactly are you suggesting?
I am not talking about that, I am talking about the explosives.
>
> Kerry is too much of a coward to tell us. Can you enlighten us? What
> would have worked?
Perhaps in another thread we can look into that... for now I am trying to
keep this discussion on topic.
>
>>> Please. Ad hominem is attacking the source: "Oscar is an idiot." It's
>>> completely different to question a source because they have a history
>>> of manipulating the news in their publication.
>>
>> Oscar is an idiot. therefore everything he says is false.
>> The NYT is a biased organization, therefore everything they post is false.
>
> Bingo. They're not the same thing. I am questioning the NYT times
> baseed on their past performance, not on some label.
>
>> Not so different.
>
> Of course they are. By your logic, judging the behavior of a business
> by its past performance is an ad hominem attack.
>
> "I shouldn't avoid that restaurant because I got lousy service the
> last time I was there. That would be an ad hominem attack."
You can not logically conclude with absolute certainty the service would be
bad now.
>
> I gave you a book that describes the patterns of abuse at the NYT. You
> chose to ignore it.
>
>> How about the AP?
>
> Have you qualified that source?
>
>> Cheney?
>
> Not a source. Cheney was simply commenting that in Kerry's world
> Saddam would still be in power. You have extrapolated and contorted
> that statement.
>
>> They seem to agree - had Bush not attacked Iraq,
>> the world would know where the weapons are today.
>
> You miss the point. They would know *who* was in control of those
> weapons: Saddam.
Yes. And who is in control of the explosives... or weapons... now?
>
>>>>> Is there a name for a logical fallacy where you attempt to take
>>>>> stories from a dubious source as the gospel source?
>>>>
>>>> Not that I know of. Why do you ask?
>>>
>>> Because that's what you do when you cite the NYT!
>>
>> You are still acting as if I have only one source. May I ask why?
>
> By your own admission, you have failed to qualify your sources. You
> just did a google-dive. You have no way of knowing if they're just
> echoes of the same NYT article.
>
>>>> Keep in mind that I have looked at
>>>> many sources for my information, including VP Cheney.
>>>
>>> See above. You are NOT citing Cheney. He is pointing out the obvious:
>>> that Kerry has never ever spelled out -- even with 20/20 hindsight --
>>> how he would have possibly removed Saddam from Iraq.
>>
>> The fact that Cheney *also* stated things in addition to his claims about
>> Bush losing the weapons is not a part of the conversation. Cheney stated:
>>
>> It is not at all clear that those explosives were even at the weapons
>> facility when our troops arrived in the area of Baghdad,
>
> Bingo. And you have extrapolated that to mean something else entirely
> different.
>
>> Now if there is evidence to suggest the weapons were gone before the US took
>> over from the UN, please provide it.
>
> What exact time are you talking about? Can you provide a timeline?
Whatever date the site was handed from UN to US control.
>
>>>>> The thing the story fails to inform: how could one take that raw
>>>>> explosive and make an IED? See my separate posting about that.
>>>>
>>>> Seems you are moving from the idea that the weapons loss was not Bush's
>>>> fault to accepting that it at least may have been - but then discounting
>>>> the
>>>> importance of the loss.
>>>
>>> I'm saying: even if the raw explosives were still there: how does
>>> Kerry know that they could have possibly been used for IEDs?
>>
>> My guess: such weapons can be used for such things.
>
> You again are calling the raw explosives "weapons". Why?
You have as well. I assumed we knew what we were talking about.
>
> Of course they can be altered. But the article strongly indicates that
> IEDs are much more easily made by scavenging from things like mortar
> shells.
>
>>> What the hell is he basing that on?
>
> We have no idea at all. But Senator John Kerry must somehow know that
> these raw explosives could easily be used by the terrorists in Iraq.
>
> We know: because falsely making the claim woudl be fear-mongering.
>
>>> Just like: how the hell -- with 20/20 hindsight -- would Senator John
>>> Kerry have gotten Saddam removed from office? Especially in light of
>>> the Al Mada corruption giving strong evidence that at least one UNSC
>>> seat had been compromised by Saddam.
>>
>> Please provide that evidence.
>
> Finally! Snit expresses some interest in the Al Mada scandal!
>
> I already provided the reference earlier:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3629620309d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm
> =7urg20lvqc9uk6hh1jmvbma8euvu49u8js%404ax.com
>
> If you want to get educated, you should also read the book:
> The French Betrayal of America.
Not sure I will be reading it any time soon. Sorry. Also do not see how it
relates to the matter at hand.
>
>
>>>>>> Vice President Dick Cheney says 400-thousand tons of explosives
>>>>>> would be in Saddam Hussein's hands if the U-S had not invaded Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>> It points to a major failing of Kerry: he can't describe how he
>>>>> possibly would have gotten UNSC consensus to remove Saddam from power.
>>>>
>>>> That is not the topic of this conversation.
>>>
>>> It's just more of Kerry's second guessing.
>>
>> I get it. You hate Kerry.
>
> No. And you miss the point.
>
> Kerry has conjectured that there was some way to get global consensus
> on Saddam. But he conveniently neglects to anser the question: exactly
> what was UN 1441? And, since Iraq is in material breach of that
> agreement, why didn't the UNSC promptly approve a measure to invade
> Iraq.
They wanted more inspections.... inspections you did not agree with.
>
> What part of "last chance" did those members not understand?
What part of "we will over throw you" was written in 1441? It was not.
>
> The simple explanation: some UNSC members had no intenet of approving
> an invasion of Iraq; their approval of UN 1441 was simply to delay the
> invasion further.
On one hand you say 1441 authorized the attack, on the other you claim it
was a delay tactic to prevent the attack.
>
>>> And I'm asking the mother of all second-guessing: that Senator John
>>> Kerry could somehow have removed Saddam from power in a "better" way.
>>
>> Perhaps. We will never know.
>
> It's far worse than that. He gives us the platitude he would have
> "done it better" but he never ever specifies any details of this
> hypothetical. It has no grounding in reality.
Hw would have worked more with the international community, for one. That
would have been a very good thing for Bush to do. Not bend over and give up
US sovereignty, but work as a world community... which does not imply 100%
agreement.
>
>> I hope we get a chance to see how he is as a
>> president.
>
> Given his failure to flesh them out, I'm somewhat frightened by people
> who blindly accept Kerry's platitudes.
I am equally frightened by what Bush has already *done*.
>
> Do you blindly accept Kerry's platitude that he could have "done
> better" in Iraq?
No.
>
>
>>>> I am not defending Kerry
>>>
>>> Have you seen the disgraceful advertisement the DNC has already
>>> released about this alleged incident?
>>
>> Not sure which ad you mean.
>
> Just google-dive news.google.com for "new kerry ad missing weapons"
>
>>>> , I am
>>>> pointing out how Bush's actions seem to have lead to the loss of tons of
>>>> explosives.
>>>
>>> Read what the explosive expert said! How do you think those hundreds
>>> of tons could have possibly been moved? A few hundred trucks cruising
>>> in and out? Perhaps they put it in their thermoses every day?
>>
>> Are you suggesting that they are still there? That they never existed?
>
> I'm trying to see if the claim that the weapons were there after the
> troops applied in Baghdad has the ring of truth.
>
> I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind the claim that they were
> taken later. To see if such claims have the ring of truth.
>
> I'm tryint to think how hundreds of specialized trucks could go in and
> out of the stockpile to remove it later.
>
> Doesn't that image intrigue you, too?
Are you suggesting that the weapons were removed under the UN's watch?
Whatever date responsibility went from the UN to the US.
>
>>>
>>>>> Could you paint a credible hypothetical how this was going to happen?
>>>>> No, I didn't think so!
>>>
>>> I really wish you would take a stab at this. Unless someone can
>>> explain how Kerry would have removed Saddam, I have no idea how they
>>> *know* he "could have done it better". It sounds just too much like
>>> Dogma.
>>
>> If you or I were given $200B to work with, I am sure we could come up with
>> something. Surgical strikes. Bribes. Etc.
>
> THen you should be able to spell out at least two our three likely
> scenarios that would have worked.
Look above. Surgical strikes. Bribes.
>
> How about one?
>
> Kerry's never bee able to tell us. All we get from him is the
> platitude that he would have done it "better". All amazingly vague
> promise, but no delivery.
>
> BTW: why do you think that congress would ever have funded $200B for
> such an effort?
They funded it for an effort that has lead to some very bad things... why
not for other ideas?
I do not claim to always agree with the subject lines of stories I post...
though in this case I have seen added evidence to support it and nothing to
contradict it.
>
>> have a script that
>> does the work for me... select the text I want to quote... hit the script
>> button... and then do very little copy and paste... :)
>
> Maybe it's time to alter the script.
>
> I like one volunteered name for all the bruhaha over this:
>
> NYTrogate.
>
> --phil
>
--
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
>> I'd like to hear some direct commentary from the Iraqi officials.
>
>Read the rest of the article. I believe they are there.
I heard some fascinating commentary from the UN offical who launched
the whole story. I'll be putting that in a new thread later today.
>> You're awfully arrogant with your words. Can you answer the question:
>> with perfect 20/20 hindsight, exactly how would Senator John Kerry
>> have gotten Saddam removed from office.
>
>See my other post from today in this thread.
Did you post a real plan in that article. If so, please say the
message-id.
>> >> Unfortunately, there is plenty of time between now and Tuesday to sort
>> >> this puppy out.
>> >
>> >Yup, and it don't look good for the Bushies.
>>
>> More arrogance. We shall see.
>
>Yet, you weren't showing arrogance?
No. I am angered at the blatant timing of the release of this item. It
is entirely politicaly motivated.
> It certainly appeared to me that
>you were.
You should point out the words or phrases you think show that.
I note that you use disrespectful slang like "Bushies". That's
arrogance. It's also rudeness.
>> It didn't look very good when 60 Minutes originally announced the
>> forged documents they had, either.
>
>The documents may have been wrong, but I've yet to see any evidence
>that the meat of the story on Bush's service in the TANG was wrong.
Then you should go immediately and present it to 60 Minutes!
>> BTW: how upset were you that someone forged those documents and that
>> CBS News was so lackadaisical in their failure to verify the
>> forgeries?
>
>They made a mistake, and they are suffering for it.
You failed to answer my question. I'm asking if *you* are upset that
some individual would stoop to forging documents in an attempt to
smear a Presidential candidate in our country.
>> > Meaning, it does look
>> >better for the American People.
>>
>> You are most certainly entitled to your opinion. Diversity is the
>> spice of life.
>
>I only hope, for the future of our country, that most people wind up
>agreeing with me.
Yes. That is part of your opinion. My opinion is that you've been
snookered.
What is your opinion of Senator John Kerry's book "The New Soldier"?
At the very least, what is your opinion of the massively disrespectful
cover of that book, which you can see at
http://usethebomb.com/NewSoldierJFK.jpg
--phil
John
Old shit from 33 years ago. Is that the best you can do? What is
your opinion of Bush REFUSING AN ORDER to get his flight physical 1
month after mandatory drug testing for flight physicals was instituted?
Phil Earnhardt
>Old shit from 33 years ago.
What an interesting comment. Did you note that David Fritzinger was
also talking about "old stuff" from GW Bush from the same time?
Did you voice an objection to David's mentioning of that? No. That's
interesting.
> Is that the best you can do?
No. I gave you a point-by-point refutation of the "Facts" about GW
Bush in a thread last week. But you were unable to respond to that
message.
You called me a "troll" and then provided your definition: to you, a
"troll" is someone who happens to disagree with you. How quaint.
I'm willing to debate with you on anything about the election. You are
the one who is not willing.
All you can do is bottom-post with personal insults. It's not really a
good use of your time, "John".
> What is
>your opinion of Bush REFUSING AN ORDER to get his flight physical 1
>month after mandatory drug testing for flight physicals was instituted?
1. Your shouting does not impress me. And it does nothing to add
credibility to your case.
2. The documents that "proved" that allegation have been shown to be
forged.
3. Two sentences ago, you were bitterly complaining about "Old [stuff]
from 33 years ago." But you seem quite interested in discussing that
about GW Bush.
"John": this reveals another of your qualities. You are a hypocrite.
Do you know the biggest difference between these two blasts form the
past? There is no controversy that Senator John Kerry is the author of
The New Soldier. Yet he refuses to own up to the words -- or the
disgraceful cover -- of that book.
http://usethebomb.com/NewSoldierJFK.jpg
--phil
David Fritzinger
GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
You know, I mostly agree with you. The positives of being an
ex-president are that you have the chance to make really big bucks for
not too much work-just giving speeches and serving on some corporate
boards. The health care plan is pretty good, from all I've seen. But, by
far the main reason most people want to be president, IMHO, is ego. They
feel they can run the country better than anyone else, and they want to
prove it. They also want to see their name in the papers (Well, maybe
not Bush, since he doesn't read the papers...<g>), and think about their
place in history. But, all in all, it is not something I would want.
--
Dave Fritzinger
David Fritzinger
Phil Earnhardt <p...@dim.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:18:31 GMT, David Fritzinger
> <dfritzi...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> There is some ugly revisionism going on at the NYT. The liberal media
> >> >> is in a Last Gasp Effort to try to alter this election.
> >> >
> >> >Umm, no, it is the conservatives and the Republicans that are doing
> >> >the revisionism.
> >>
> >> References?
> >
> >Well, let's see... First Bush says the Iraq war is about WMD
>
> Kerry talked about those same links -- using the same data -- in 2002.
Bush used WMD and al Qaeda links as the main reason for the war. Now, he
has neither.
>
> > and ties
> >between SH and OBL. Now, when those have gone away
>
> You claim there was no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam?
The Senate Intel report and the 9/11 commission report both agree there
were no substantive links between them. So, yes.
>
> >, it is about bringing
> >freedom and democracy to the Middle East. That sort of thing.
>
> Perhaps it had something to do with Saddam's failure to honor the
> terms of the Gulf War Armistice? His shooting at US planes in the "no
> fly zone"? Saddam's failure to comply with over a dozen UN
> resolutions, including UN 1441: the "Last chance" resolution?
>
> It had nothing to do with any of those?
>
> >> >> The New York Times Fraud is not a small thing. As was the CBS News
> >> >> Fraud about the forged documents.
> >> >
> >> >Sure, yell about the sources when you can't actually refute the story.
> >>
> >> Of course I can. CBS themselves apologized for the forged documents
> >> that they represented as true. Did you miss that story?
> >
> >You do believe in changing the subject, don't you?
>
> No. I think you just didn't read my words "CBS News Fraud" when you
> replied about "can't actually refute the story".
Which doesn't change my point that you changed the subject.
>
> > We were talking about
> >the explosives in Iraq, not Bush's service in Texas.
>
> I'm talking about the shameful behavior of the media in this election.
> And it's related: CBS originally planned to announce this story on
> Sunday before the election: before the real story could be sorted out
> from the innuendo.
Evidence for this?
>
> >>
> >> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644546.shtml
> >>
> >> That's what I mean when I ask for references.
>
> Humor me: what's your 50-word response to the forged documents story?
>
> Are you at all outraged?
As I said, they made a mistake, and they are suffering for it. Their
reputation has been hurt, and when you are a news organization, your
reputation is quite important. They are looking into it, however.
>
> >>
> >> >> Are the liberals outraged at these iddy biddy teeny weeny factual
> >> >> errors that are creeping up in the media?
> >> >
> >> >How about the conservatives being outraged about the lies from the
> >> >Bush campaign.
> >>
> >> References?
>
> <Nothing.>
See below, where I gave them. If you want references, just look at the
debates.
>
> >> > Such as the mischaracterization of Kerry's health care
> >> >plan
> >>
> >> It's a huge regluatory nightmare.
> >
> >Too bad that isn't the mischaracterization I was talking about. And, I'm
> >not sure Bush has mentioned your point. My point was about the times
> >Bush has said Kerry's healthcare plan amounted to government takeover of
> >the healthcare system, even after Kerry explained it in the third
> >debate.
>
> He claimed it wasn't. I have no confidence whatsoever that it could be
> implemented without huge government intervention in the process.
You are changing the subject. The Bush campaign characterized the Kerry
plan as government run healthcare. It is not.
>
> In short: I'm unimpressed by the platitudes of Kerry.
And, I am unimpressed by the same from Bush. Why isn't Bush running on
his record, anyway?
>
> >> And I have a fundamental question I have yet to hear anyone answer:
> >>
> >> If Kerry's plan is poor compared to what private employers provide,
> >> how long will it take before people on that plan start complaining
> >> about "Second-class medical care" and demand moer?
> >>
> >> If Kerry's plan is comparable to what private employers provide, why
> >> will private employers keep offering this benefit? Why not just
> >> improve the bottom line by dropping their health care?
> >>
> >> If Kerry is elected, this is going to be a huge program, and it will
> >> only get larger as private health-care only becomes an afterthought.
> >
> >You might think about starting a different thread on this.
>
> You might think of humoring us with 50 words of a reply. It really is
> a pretty simple question.
Will you answer what Bush is doing to help the uninsured get health
insurance? The Bush plan won't help, since the poor can't afford the
savings accounts Bush is proposing.
> >>
> >> >, The taking out of context of Kerry's statements which make it
> >> >look as if he wasn't changed by 9/11 when he actually very concerned
> >> >about terrorism *before* 9/11 (unlike the Bushies).
> >>
> >> I'm more interested in Kerry's actions. Like how he voted against $6B
> >> of intelligence funding after the first terrorist attack on the WTC.
> >
> >Reference?
>
> $1.5B. My mistake.
>
> http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=3946
You need a better source than the GOP. Would you accept a cite from the
DNC?
>
> >> Or how Kerry voted against the Gulf War -- how he thought that
> >> diplomacy would somehow have Saddam remove himself from Kuwait.
> >
> >In hindsight, I believe he was wrong there. However, he is allowed to
> >make a mistake.
>
> Has he ever admitted that vote was a mistake?
Boy, speaking of hypocrisy! Considering that Bush, who has made so many
mistakes it boggles the mind, twice was not able to think of any
mistakes he made.
>
> I'm still waiting for someone to explain: exactly how would Kerry have
> dealt with Saddam? How would he have gotten him removed from power?
> Even with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I've never seen this
> second-guessing spelled out.
It is a totally stupid question to ask. If Kerry had been president
during the last 4 years, history would have been quite different. I
believe it would have been better. As I said, I don't believe there was
any pressing need to get rid of Saddam, as he presented no threat to the
US, either in the short or medium term. Other countries, such as North
Korea and Iran, were and remain much greater threats.
>
> >> > Or, the total lack
> >> >of responsibility in the administration. People screw up left and
> >> >right, and no one takes any responsibilty, or suffers any
> >> >consequences.
> >>
> >> I have no idea what that means.
> >
> >Clearly, the CIA screwed up with the pre-war intelligence.
>
> One wonders if the Senior members of the Senate Intelligence Committee
> would like to take any responsibility there.
They should. And, the Senate is trying to reform intelligence in a
bipartisan manner. The House Republicans do not seem to be as serious.
>
> The US had a failing of its intelligence going back to the Carter
> administration. And Clinton added some rules that were unworkable:
> restrictions on the conduct of spies that were unworkable.
Yet, it is clear we had the intelligence that said Saddam was not a
threat. Clearly, he did not have an active nuclear program, yet the
administration said he did. In the 2002 NIE that was used to justify the
war, the CIA did much to qualify any statements about Saddam having
chemical and nuclear weapons. So, much was known, but the intel was
probably skewed by some in the Bush administration.
>
> We had a *strategic* failure of our intelligence system: too much
> reliance on electronics. That will take decades to fix.
>
> > Yet, no one
> >suffered. Clearly, Rumsfeld screwed up with the post-war planning for
> >Iraq, yet he is still Secretary of Defense.
>
> But every war will have screw-ups. And the timetables for the
> reconstruction of Iraq are far quicker than the schedules for Germany
> after WWII. And, despite the gloom and doom that the Demorats said
> would happen, the hand-off to Iraqi officials over the summer was
> quite smooth.
Sorry, but senior military officials said more troops were needed, but
Rumsfeld ignored them. Shinseki (spelling) was one.
>
> > Clearly, many screwups led
> >to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal,
>
> Not at all clear. How did you come to your conclusions?
The whole climate of the administration, which said that torture was OK,
putting American citizens in jail with no recourse to a lawyer is OK,
ignoring the Geneva conventions is OK, etc, was instrumental in setting
up the abuses in Abu Ghraib. Indeed, the abuses in Abu Ghraib began
shortly after a visit from the commander (I believe) of Guantanamo.
There was a pattern in the administration that set the climate that
caused the abuses in Abu Ghraib.
>
> >yet, with the exception of a few
> >non-coms and PFC's, no one has paid.
>
> What makes you think the abuses went much higher?
Oh, I forgot. You are talking about the Bush administration, where the
buck always stops somewhere else.
>
> > And, in todays news we see the CIA
> >removed prisoners from Iraq in direct contravention of the Geneva
> >Accords. Yet, no one has paid.
>
> I don't know about this.
It's been in the news over the last couple of days. Do you live in a
bubble?
>
> >There is no accountability in this
> >administration.
>
> Gosh. That's my definition of a wild extrapolation!
Gosh, read what I wrote above.
>
> >>
> >> References?
> >>
> >> > Rumsfeld not putting enough troops in Iraq,
> >>
> >> That's disinformation by the Kerry campaign. Just like his
> >> fear-mongering about a draft -- based on legislation introduced by
> >> Democrats in January of 2003. Democrats who didn't even vote for their
> >> own legislation (!) when it was put up for a vote. What a bunch of
> >> manipulative fear-mongerers!
> >
> >Actually, it isn't. Bremer himself thought there should have been more
> >troops in Iraq.
>
> Did you read the WSJ editorial about that? Bremmer had multiple
> chances to ask for more troops and failed to do that. He's pulling a
> Clinton -- trying to make himself look good after the fact.
Clinton didn't need to make himself look good after the fact. And, the
fact is that high military officials said we would need more troops, but
were ignored. Read Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" to see more about
this. Don't worry. The book has been recommended by the Bush Campaign.
>
> > But, nice try to at lying and spinning.
>
> You failed to comment at all on the shameful demogaugery that the
> Democrats tried to do around the non-issue of a draft!
Kerry probably shouldn't have said that. However, it is small potatas
compared to the things the Bush campaign has said about Kerry. Lying
about the 'global test" and taking those words out of context. Lying
about Kerry's health plan. Lying about the statement where Kerry said he
wanted a world where terrorism to be a minor problem. Lying about how
Kerry said 9/11 didn't really change him, but leaving out the rest of
the statement where Kerry said he had been very concerned about
terrorism *before* 9/11. Etc.
>
> >>
> >> > the bad
> >> >intelligence (or, lies, take your choice) leading up to the war in
> >> >Iraq
> >>
> >> That's a strategic failure of intelligence -- a failure over years. A
> >> failure that includes Bush Sr. and WJ Clinton.
> >
> >Yet, the Intel told the Bush administration that there was no yellowcake
> >from Niger, and the aluminum tubes were not being used for the
> >enrichment of uranium.
>
> Yet yellowcake started showing up other places in the Middle East.
> Interesting.
How so? The fact is, the source Bush used was a lie. When this was
pointed out, they outed the wife of the person who told the world the
yellowcake story was untrue. Indeed, it was widely known it was a crude
forgery.
>
> > Yet we still heard the stories. That suggests
> >lies.
>
> But doesn't prove any lies.
Why did Bush have the yellowcake story pulled from his Oct, 2002 speech?
Because he was told it was untrue. Yet, he used it in his 2003 SotU
address. And, it was well known in the intelligence community that the
aluminum tubes were not being used for uranium enrichment, yet we were
told that was their only possible purpose.
>
> > However, if it was the intel that was so bad, why hasn't the CIA
> >been cleaned out. As I said, no accountability in the administration.
> >And, thank you for making my point.
>
> You do quite well until you have these little snits at the end of your
> statements. Why can't you just debte respectfully here?
What was disrespectful? I thanked you, because you backed up what I have
been saying about the lack of accountability in the administration.
>
> >> >, misleading Congress on the cost of the Medicare drug plan, etc.
> >> >Take your choice. Why aren't you outraged about all the lies and
> >> >deception of this adminsitration?
> >>
> >> What's outrageous is that you characterize them as lies.
> >
> >Certainly, the administration lied about the cost of the Medicare bill.
> >The chief controller of the Medicare system was threatened with firing
> >if he told Congress of the true cost. So, that is a lie.
>
> References?
I have spent enough time answering your post, and I don't really have
time to look up the story. It was in the news, shortly after the House
rammed through the bill. Last March, or so. Perhaps I will have a chance
to look this up later.
>
> >> What's outrageous is that you don't call Kerry a liar when he reported
> >> on the danger of WMDs in Iraq -- using that same intelligence data.
> >
> >As you are wont to say, reference?
>
> I'll look. Not now. I was listening to Rush while driving today; he
> played the sound bite of Kerry hijmself saying it.
Yeah, Rush is a real good and unbiased source.
snicker, snicker.
>
> > And, even if Kerry thought Iraq had
> >WMD, would he have gone in without better proof?
>
> Kerry based his vote to approve the war on exactly the same intel.
Kerry's vote did not approve the war. It gave Bush the authority to go
to war as a means of leveraging Saddam. He made it very clear that he
expected Bush to do is best to avoid going to war, if at all possible.
Clearly, this did not happen. Why do conservatives always forget what
the vote was actually about.
>
> > Sorry, but you are
> >involved in some pretty slimy spinning here.
>
> You do so well until you get to these slimy sentences at the end of
> your postings. Cut it out, please.
But, you are. You mischaractized the nature of the vote, and you ignored
what Kerry said about the vote. That is spin, and when I say that, I am
being kind.
>
> >> What's outrageous about the Democrats is that I have yet to see a
> >> single on who can reconcile Kerry's outrageous statements from his
> >> book "The New Soldier" -- how they all attempt to ignore the book. How
> >> the Democratic Legal Eagles have done everything they can to try to
> >> burn that book.
> >
> >To tell the truth, I have no idea what you are talking about. Enlighten
> >me if you will.
>
> Do a google on "John Kerry" "The New Soldier".
As you have said, why don't you give me a 50 word summary of the book?
>
> This is the book that the Democrats have so obfuscated that even the
> loyal democrats don't know about.
>
> Make sure you do a search on images.google.com so you can see the
> disgraceful cover of the book.
John Kerry fought in a war he disagreed with. Afterwards, he took part
in activities to end a war that he thought was wrong. History has agreed
that it was wrong. You'll have to do better than that.
>
> --phil
--
Dave Fritzinger
David Fritzinger
Phil Earnhardt <p...@dim.com> wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2004 09:31:40 -0700, Lars.T...@epost.de (Lars Tr?ger)
> wrote:
>
> >Phil Earnhardt <p...@dim.com> wrote in message
> >news:<m3gun0hsst1dr825t...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:01:40 GMT, David Fritzinger
> >> <dfritzi...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Yet, every day, the news shows more and more mistakes.
> >>
> >> It's a war!
> >
> >Yes, that was a mistake too.
>
> Then you need to paint a clear picture of what the alternative was.
> How exactly would Senator John Kerry have gotten Saddam removed from
> power? What exact steps would he have taken?
Why does anyone have to do that? It is possible (indeed, probable) the
US would have been better off if we had just left Saddam in power. He
was certainly emasculated. Had no WMD. No ties to al Qaeda. Not much of
an army. The only people he was capable of hurting were the Iraqis.
Now, I'm not saying that the Iraqis will not be better off, someday,
because we removed Saddam. But, he surely was no danger to the US.
>
> Why does Kerry never answer that question?
Possibly because it is an inane question.
>
> What European countries would have supported him? Note: France was
> already moving to get *all* the sanctions lifted from Saddam's Iraq?
Evidence? Certainly, as long as sanctions were maintained, Saddam was no
threat to the US.
>
--
Dave Fritzinger
John
Killians secretary stated that Bush did refuse the order and that
Killian was upset about it.
Phil Earnhardt
<dfritzi...@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <mgeun0pohs5pprt7o...@4ax.com>,
> Phil Earnhardt <p...@dim.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:18:31 GMT, David Fritzinger
>> <dfritzi...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> There is some ugly revisionism going on at the NYT. The liberal media
>> >> >> is in a Last Gasp Effort to try to alter this election.
>> >> >
>> >> >Umm, no, it is the conservatives and the Republicans that are doing
>> >> >the revisionism.
>> >>
>> >> References?
>> >
>> >Well, let's see... First Bush says the Iraq war is about WMD
>>
>> Kerry talked about those same links -- using the same data -- in 2002.
>
>Bush used WMD
Bingo. And that's what the intelligence said! The exact same
intelligence that had Kerry talking about those Iraqi WMDs back in
2002?
Do you understand the primary use of the high-power explosives that
this whole thread is about: they're very good to use to precisely
implode the separate parts of a nuclear bomb together in order to
achieve criticality. The US knew that in 1995, and they told the UN
that those explosives should be removed. The UN inspectors didn't have
the backbone to remove these stockpiles in 1995.
> and al Qaeda links as the main reason for the war.
Yes. The links to terrorism in Iraq.
> Now, he
>has neither.
WRT the weapons -- and the parts to make them -- I think this "proves"
that Saddam has the ability to move his supplies as long as he's given
months and months of warning before an attack.
Did you see the story that the Russians were probably the ones who
relocated this stockpile -- probably to Syria -- before the war?
What do you mean that Bush "has neither" WRT terrorists in Iraq?
>> > and ties
>> >between SH and OBL. Now, when those have gone away
>>
>> You claim there was no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam?
>
>The Senate Intel report and the 9/11 commission report both agree there
>were no substantive links between them. So, yes.
At the very least, you acnkowledge a link. Thank you. Some people say
those documents show no link; they are wrong.
What about the Billions of dollars that Saddam was using for bribes in
the world? What about the accounting in the Al Mada spreadsheet. That
Smoking GUn was not even mentioned in those two reports.
Also: David: we're out for the elimination of *all* terrorism. Not
just one particular variety. Why should our goal be anything else?
One of the most important lessons for state-sponsored terrorism: if
you do unacceptable things, you will be held to account for them. Some
European states were working for the removal of all sanctions against
Iraq. That would have sent a disasterous message: all you need to do
to get out from your punishment [for invading Kuwait] is to wait for
long enough, and then you'll be forgiven for your past transgressions.
And exactly what do you think Saddam would have re-started if all the
sanctions were lifted?
>>
>> >, it is about bringing
>> >freedom and democracy to the Middle East. That sort of thing.
>>
>> Perhaps it had something to do with Saddam's failure to honor the
>> terms of the Gulf War Armistice? His shooting at US planes in the "no
>> fly zone"? Saddam's failure to comply with over a dozen UN
>> resolutions, including UN 1441: the "Last chance" resolution?
>>
>> It had nothing to do with any of those?
Well, David? You need to address this area!
>> > We were talking about
>> >the explosives in Iraq, not Bush's service in Texas.
>>
>> I'm talking about the shameful behavior of the media in this election.
>> And it's related: CBS originally planned to announce this story on
>> Sunday before the election: before the real story could be sorted out
>> from the innuendo.
>
>Evidence for this?
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/26/20041026_223804_nbcw6.htm
" Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of 60 MINUTES,
said in a statement that 'our plan was to run the story on October 31,
but it became clear that it wouldn't hold...' "
60 Minutes has already tried one hatchet job in this election cycle,
and they were preparing to do another one. They have no sense of shame
at all; they are trying to interfere in the election.
>> >> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644546.shtml
>> >>
>> >> That's what I mean when I ask for references.
>>
>> Humor me: what's your 50-word response to the forged documents story?
>>
>> Are you at all outraged?
>
>As I said, they made a mistake, and they are suffering for it.
We are all suffering for it! Not only did these Rocket Scientists fail
to research their documents before launching the story, they defended
the story for days (!) after it was painfully obvious that they had
screwed up. And they have never ever apologized for the potential of
their story to influence the election. And they have never ever
apologized to our President.
> Their
>reputation has been hurt, and when you are a news organization, your
>reputation is quite important.
The reputation of America in the world was hurt by these folk.
>They are looking into it, however.
Gosh. I am mightily impressed. It speaks volumes to think that
investigation will do anything at all meangful.
Why didn't we have the RNC form an "impartial panel" to investigate
the Watergate break-in?
>> >> >> Are the liberals outraged at these iddy biddy teeny weeny factual
>> >> >> errors that are creeping up in the media?
>> >> >
>> >> >How about the conservatives being outraged about the lies from the
>> >> >Bush campaign.
>> >>
>> >> References?
>>
>> <Nothing.>
>See below, where I gave them. If you want references, just look at the
>debates.
Aha. I now understand what you are saying.
We also have liberals that decry the Kerry candidacy. That
cross-criticism is par for any election. Why do you think that it was
noteworthy this time around?
>> >> > Such as the mischaracterization of Kerry's health care
>> >> >plan
>> >>
>> >> It's a huge regluatory nightmare.
>> >
>> >Too bad that isn't the mischaracterization I was talking about. And, I'm
>> >not sure Bush has mentioned your point. My point was about the times
>> >Bush has said Kerry's healthcare plan amounted to government takeover of
>> >the healthcare system, even after Kerry explained it in the third
>> >debate.
>>
>> He claimed it wasn't. I have no confidence whatsoever that it could be
>> implemented without huge government intervention in the process.
>
>You are changing the subject.
Someone who starts talking about a health care plan in the middle of a
discussion about explosives is worried about changing the subject???
David: chill.
>The Bush campaign characterized the Kerry
>plan as government run healthcare. It is not.
I'm sure you've seen the RNC advertisement about Kerry's health care
proposal. Why don't you tell us exactly what is inaccurate in that ad?
Rather than be vague, please tell us the specifics!
>> In short: I'm unimpressed by the platitudes of Kerry.
>And, I am unimpressed by the same from Bush. Why isn't Bush running on
>his record, anyway?
He is.
We have been recovering from the downturn in the economy which started
before the end of the Clinton Presidency.
We are dealing with terrorism. We are fighting the war on terrorism
where the terrorists are --- and away from American soil.
We have a candidate who keeps saying he would have done things
"better" in Iraq, but fails to provide the details. A candidate who
has never ever said how he possibly could have gotten UNSC consensus
on an invasion of Iraq.
More diplomacy would have done it. Just an ittsy bitsy teeny weeny bit
more than the twelve years and over a dozen UN resolutions.
Maybe 2 more resolutions would have had Saddam cave instantly, right?
As long as we put the "last chance" label on both of them.
Saddam knew a truth more profoundly than many in the 1990s: the UN has
no spine. And the seats at the UNSC can be corrupted.
>> >> And I have a fundamental question I have yet to hear anyone answer:
>> >>
>> >> If Kerry's plan is poor compared to what private employers provide,
>> >> how long will it take before people on that plan start complaining
>> >> about "Second-class medical care" and demand moer?
>> >>
>> >> If Kerry's plan is comparable to what private employers provide, why
>> >> will private employers keep offering this benefit? Why not just
>> >> improve the bottom line by dropping their health care?
>> >>
>> >> If Kerry is elected, this is going to be a huge program, and it will
>> >> only get larger as private health-care only becomes an afterthought.
>> >
>> >You might think about starting a different thread on this.
>>
>> You might think of humoring us with 50 words of a reply. It really is
>> a pretty simple question.
>
>Will you answer what Bush is doing to help the uninsured get health
>insurance?
Provide tax breaks for businesses to help them provide it.
Overhaul the legal system to remove a hugee part of the "lawyer tax"
that each and every one of us must now pay for.
Make sure that we don't add yet more government beuracy to administer
such a system.
>> >> >, The taking out of context of Kerry's statements which make it
>> >> >look as if he wasn't changed by 9/11 when he actually very concerned
>> >> >about terrorism *before* 9/11 (unlike the Bushies).
>> >>
>> >> I'm more interested in Kerry's actions. Like how he voted against $6B
>> >> of intelligence funding after the first terrorist attack on the WTC.
>> >
>> >Reference?
>>
>> $1.5B. My mistake.
>>
>> http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=3946
>
>You need a better source than the GOP. Would you accept a cite from the
>DNC?
Are you challenging that Kerry voted against the funding?
>> >> Or how Kerry voted against the Gulf War -- how he thought that
>> >> diplomacy would somehow have Saddam remove himself from Kuwait.
>> >
>> >In hindsight, I believe he was wrong there. However, he is allowed to
>> >make a mistake.
>>
>> Has he ever admitted that vote was a mistake?
>
>Boy, speaking of hypocrisy!
I take that as a "No"!!
Kerry never admits his mistakes, does he? He never ever admitted that
his words and the grossly disrespectful cover of his book "The New
Soldier" were a mistake, did he?
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/images/newsoldier.jpg
> Considering that Bush, who has made so many
>mistakes
His administration has admitted the mistakes in intelligence.
Kerry has never admitted that he made conclusions from that same
intelligence in his speaches in 2002.
> it boggles the mind, twice was not able to think of any
>mistakes he made.
That was a goofy question to ask in the debate.
And the big issue: removing Saddam was not a mistake. I am somewhat
mystified why BUsh didn't just cite Saddam's failure to comply with
all fo the UN resolutions since the Gulf War -- and, most
fundamentally, Saddam's failure to comply with the Armistice of that
war.
You do understand what it means to fail to comply with an Armistice,
right?
>> I'm still waiting for someone to explain: exactly how would Kerry have
>> dealt with Saddam? How would he have gotten him removed from power?
>> Even with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I've never seen this
>> second-guessing spelled out.
>
>It is a totally stupid question to ask. If Kerry had been president
>during the last 4 years, history would have been quite different.
Then answer that question instead!
> I
>believe it would have been better. As I said, I don't believe there was
>any pressing need to get rid of Saddam, as he presented no threat to the
>US, either in the short or medium term.
You ignore the fact that the French, Germans, and Russians had been
illegally selling arms to Saddam.
You ignore the fact that France was pushing for the removal of UN
sanctions against Saddam.
> Other countries, such as North
>Korea and Iran, were and remain much greater threats.
But none of those other countries had invaded another country, agreed
to an Armistice, and then failed to honor the terms of that treaty.
And then failed to honor the terms of over a dozen UN follow-up
motions.
What specific actions should have been taken for the failed UN actions
in Iran and North Korea? An invasion? Do you think the UNSC would have
approved that?
You see: Kerry's platitudes are interesting. But the shimmer of the
platitudes goes away pretty damn fast.
>> >Clearly, the CIA screwed up with the pre-war intelligence.
>>
>> One wonders if the Senior members of the Senate Intelligence Committee
>> would like to take any responsibility there.
>
>They should.
And when has Senator John Kerry ever done that? When has he said that
the buck also stops with him?
>> The US had a failing of its intelligence going back to the Carter
>> administration. And Clinton added some rules that were unworkable:
>> restrictions on the conduct of spies that were unworkable.
>
>Yet, it is clear we had the intelligence that said Saddam was not a
>threat.
We had all sorts of conflicting reprts. That's why they call it
intelligence! It's not about facts!
The most interesting reports to me are the ones that Saddam's own
scientists and staff were lying to him on the state and viability of
their programs.
> Clearly, he did not have an active nuclear program,
But he did have hundreds of tons of explosives whose main purpose is
to make nuclear bombs. And the UN atomic inspectors in 1995 didn't
have the guts to remove that from Iraq.
> yet the
>administration said he did.
As the administration's intelligence said he did.
> In the 2002 NIE that was used to justify the
>war, the CIA did much to qualify any statements about Saddam having
>chemical and nuclear weapons. So, much was known, but the intel was
>probably skewed by some in the Bush administration.
That is what you fervently believe. But that doesn't explain Kerry's
own statements about the WMD threat in 2002.
>> We had a *strategic* failure of our intelligence system: too much
>> reliance on electronics. That will take decades to fix.
Agreed?
>> > Yet, no one
>> >suffered. Clearly, Rumsfeld screwed up with the post-war planning for
>> >Iraq, yet he is still Secretary of Defense.
>>
>> But every war will have screw-ups. And the timetables for the
>> reconstruction of Iraq are far quicker than the schedules for Germany
>> after WWII. And, despite the gloom and doom that the Demorats said
>> would happen, the hand-off to Iraqi officials over the summer was
>> quite smooth.
>
>Sorry, but senior military officials said more troops were needed,
Not all of them. Did Tommy Franks?
>> > Clearly, many screwups led
>> >to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal,
>>
>> Not at all clear. How did you come to your conclusions?
>
>The whole climate of the administration, which said that torture was OK,
>putting American citizens in jail with no recourse to a lawyer is OK,
>ignoring the Geneva conventions is OK,
Way too broad statements to be at all useful in this discussion. I
asked for some clarity:
Who? Where? References?
Are you asserting that the Geneva Convention agreements should apply
to terrorists.
> etc, was instrumental in setting
>up the abuses in Abu Ghraib.
That is a wild conjecture on your part! Do you have some references
that have a compelling argument linking these 2 things together?
> Indeed, the abuses in Abu Ghraib began
>shortly after a visit from the commander (I believe) of Guantanamo.
And your job is to convince us that this is not simply a coincidence!
Innuendo != facts.
David: we're already getting far too much innuendo in this campaign
from Kerry. He claimed that the weapon dump in the news this week was
the source of terrorist explosives. How the hell could he know such a
thing?
>There was a pattern in the administration that set the climate that
>caused the abuses in Abu Ghraib.
That's your conjecture. But we're not buying unless you make a
compelling case.
>> >yet, with the exception of a few
>> >non-coms and PFC's, no one has paid.
>>
>> What makes you think the abuses went much higher?
>
>Oh, I forgot. You are talking about the Bush administration, where the
>buck always stops somewhere else.
No. You're forgetting you are posting to USENET, where the buck stops
with you to make a compelling case for your arguments. Conjecture is
not a substitute for facts or reasoning.
What have you got, buckeroo?
>> > And, in todays news we see the CIA
>> >removed prisoners from Iraq in direct contravention of the Geneva
>> >Accords. Yet, no one has paid.
>>
>> I don't know about this.
>
>It's been in the news over the last couple of days. Do you live in a
>bubble?
You would say "we're changing the subject" if I discussed such a
thing.
We're dealing with the non-story du jour from the NYT --
affectionately known as NYTrogate. Didn't you notice?
>> >There is no accountability in this
>> >administration.
>>
>> Gosh. That's my definition of a wild extrapolation!
>
>Gosh, read what I wrote above.
I did. I read all sorts of conjecture. I saw no citations and no
reasoning.
Your extrapolation is a No Pass.
>> >Actually, it isn't. Bremer himself thought there should have been more
>> >troops in Iraq.
>>
>> Did you read the WSJ editorial about that? Bremmer had multiple
>> chances to ask for more troops and failed to do that. He's pulling a
>> Clinton -- trying to make himself look good after the fact.
>
>Clinton didn't need to make himself look good after the fact.
As time passes, Clinton's presidency continues to look worse. The
economic bubble popped under his tenure. In your words, he left us
with inadequate troop strength. And the "Oil for Food" program which
origninated under his watch may wind up totally destroying any
credibility the UN has.
See the separate posting about that; I'll send it out after this.
> And, the
>fact is that high military officials said we would need more troops, but
>were ignored. Read Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" to see more about
>this. Don't worry. The book has been recommended by the Bush Campaign.
Has Kerry's own book "The New Soldier" been recommended by the Kerry
campaign? If not, why not?
>> > But, nice try to at lying and spinning.
>>
>> You failed to comment at all on the shameful demogaugery that the
>> Democrats tried to do around the non-issue of a draft!
>
>Kerry probably shouldn't have said that.
That's only part of the story. The other part is the Urban Legend
e-mails that were circulating this summer about a draft by June of 05.
One wonders how those letters were organized....
> However, it is small potatas
>compared to the things the Bush campaign has said about Kerry. Lying
>about the 'global test" and taking those words out of context.
Kerry is the one who is drowning us in ambiguity. He could clear this
up at any time he wanted to.
Please tell us: yes or no: would Kerry have gone into Iraq without a
UNSC vote?
> Lying
>about Kerry's health plan.
Hardly. It will indeed be a huge bureacracy! And doctors will have
less say in your health choices!
> Lying about the statement where Kerry said he
>wanted a world where terrorism to be a minor problem.
If Kerry is going to say something ambiguous, he has to live with it.
How about Kerry's taking the Matt Laurer statement and broadcasting
that -- after Bush admitted that he made a mis-statement in his
conversation with Mr. Laurer?
>>
>> >>
>> >> > the bad
>> >> >intelligence (or, lies, take your choice) leading up to the war in
>> >> >Iraq
>> >>
>> >> That's a strategic failure of intelligence -- a failure over years. A
>> >> failure that includes Bush Sr. and WJ Clinton.
>> >
>> >Yet, the Intel told the Bush administration that there was no yellowcake
>> >from Niger, and the aluminum tubes were not being used for the
>> >enrichment of uranium.
>>
>> Yet yellowcake started showing up other places in the Middle East.
>> Interesting.
>
>How so?
It could well have been moved from Iraq.
> The fact is, the source Bush used was a lie.
But that is vastly different from saying that Bush lied!
>When this was
>pointed out, they outed the wife of the person
That's an allegation! And her husband already publicly bragged about
what his wife did.
>> > Yet we still heard the stories. That suggests
>> >lies.
>>
>> But doesn't prove any lies.
>
>Why did Bush have the yellowcake story pulled from his Oct, 2002 speech?
Time limits? I don't know. This is just more innuendo that could have
perfectly innocent reasons.
>Because he was told it was untrue.
You need to back that up! Is that only your conjecture?
>> > However, if it was the intel that was so bad, why hasn't the CIA
>> >been cleaned out. As I said, no accountability in the administration.
>> >And, thank you for making my point.
>>
>> You do quite well until you have these little snits at the end of your
>> statements. Why can't you just debte respectfully here?
>
>What was disrespectful?
That's my question: why do you use disrespectful terms -- "Bushies" --
to describe our president? You'll never see me do that with Kerry or
Clinton.
>> >> >, misleading Congress on the cost of the Medicare drug plan, etc.
>> >> >Take your choice. Why aren't you outraged about all the lies and
>> >> >deception of this adminsitration?
>> >>
>> >> What's outrageous is that you characterize them as lies.
>> >
>> >Certainly, the administration lied about the cost of the Medicare bill.
>> >The chief controller of the Medicare system was threatened with firing
>> >if he told Congress of the true cost. So, that is a lie.
>>
>> References?
>
>I have spent enough time answering your post, and I don't really have
>time to look up the story.
OK. I understand. If you're going to tread this far off-topic, you
need to make sure you have reliable bread crumbs.
What I'm going to post later today: compelling evidence and arguments
that there's no way in hell that Kerry or Gore or Clinton could ever
have gotten UNSC approval for an invasion of Iraq. IMHO, that is the
most important thing that should be understood by the American people
in this election.
When Kerry implies that he could have gotten such a consensus, he is
lying.
>> >> What's outrageous is that you don't call Kerry a liar when he reported
>> >> on the danger of WMDs in Iraq -- using that same intelligence data.
>> >
>> >As you are wont to say, reference?
>>
>> I'll look. Not now. I was listening to Rush while driving today; he
>> played the sound bite of Kerry hijmself saying it.
>
>Yeah, Rush is a real good and unbiased source.
And you are a real good unbiased source on Rush.
>snicker, snicker.
I don't think he's in the habit of lying about what Senator John Kerry
says. Do you? Why did you blurt out that disrespectful statement right
now?
>> > And, even if Kerry thought Iraq had
>> >WMD, would he have gone in without better proof?
>>
>> Kerry based his vote to approve the war on exactly the same intel.
>
>Kerry's vote did not approve the war. It gave Bush the authority to go
>to war as a means of leveraging Saddam.
Amazing: Senators try to give us a revisionist history what their
individual votes mean after the fact. Stop the presses!
>He made it very clear that he
>expected Bush to do is best to avoid going to war, if at all possible.
He did. Twelve years. Over a dozen UN resolutsions, including a "last
chance" resolution.
>Clearly, this did not happen.
Then you need to tell us exactly what other genuflections GW Bush
should have gone through. Spell it out for us, please!
And then go read the compelling WSJ editorial today.
We've been living with this lie for long enough. Kerry could not have
fixed this with diplomacy. Period. There was massive cheating on the
sanctions and massive corruption and influence to attempt to remove
them all.
Read that article, please. Read it twice. If you really understand
what is said there, you may well change your vote.
> Why do conservatives always forget what
>the vote was actually about.
Why do liberals live in Fantasyland about what has been going on for
the last 10 years?
Why do you think the NYT has been so lax about reporting on the
massive corruption in the "Oil for Food" program? Simple: it allows
you to continue to live in the illusion that there was some UN
solution to dealing with Saddam. There was not.
It's time to get out of Fantasyland, David.
>> >> What's outrageous about the Democrats is that I have yet to see a
>> >> single on who can reconcile Kerry's outrageous statements from his
>> >> book "The New Soldier" -- how they all attempt to ignore the book. How
>> >> the Democratic Legal Eagles have done everything they can to try to
>> >> burn that book.
>> >
>> >To tell the truth, I have no idea what you are talking about. Enlighten
>> >me if you will.
>>
>> Do a google on "John Kerry" "The New Soldier".
>
>As you have said, why don't you give me a 50 word summary of the book?
It defines a defeatist position towards the war. It contains the
testamony of a Presidential candidate who admitted to committing war
crimes who never spent a day in jail. It has an attitude of contempt
for the military.
It is a book written by one of our Presidential candidates. And he's
so ashamed of the book that he never ever mentions it.
OK?
>> This is the book that the Democrats have so obfuscated that even the
>> loyal democrats don't know about.
Which are you more ignorant about: The New Soldier or the "Oil for
Food" scandal?
>> Make sure you do a search on images.google.com so you can see the
>> disgraceful cover of the book.
>
>John Kerry fought in a war he disagreed with.
And that somehow justifies the grossly unpatriotic display on the
cover of that book?
> Afterwards, he took part
>in activities to end a war that he thought was wrong.
And why exactly couldn't he have done that in a dignified way: one
that didn't denegrate the military?
This is a guy who was gunning for President from an early age. Why did
he act so irresponsibly? Why has he never ever diasvowed these foolish
acts from his youth?
You complained that GW didn't acknowledge his mistakes. Do you think
that Kerry really sets some sort of example here?
Why did he take hearsay from other soldiers from Vietnam and present
it as the truth in his Congressional hearing?
> History has agreed
>that it was wrong. You'll have to do better than that.
Senator John Kerry is viewed as a war hero in North Vietnam. His
sound-bites were played over and over to POWs as they were tortured
and some died. He acted in a contemptable way to his fellow soldiers,
his military, his flag, and to his country.
He is unfit for command.
Finally: he is living in a fantasy land thinking that he could have
ever gotten a UNSC consensus on Iraq. Read the other posting this
afternoon to see why.
--phil
Lars Tr?ger
> On 27 Oct 2004 09:31:40 -0700, Lars.T...@epost.de (Lars Tr?ger)
> wrote:
>
> >Phil Earnhardt <p...@dim.com> wrote in message news:<m3gun0hsst1dr825t...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:01:40 GMT, David Fritzinger
> >> <dfritzi...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Yet, every day, the news shows more and more mistakes.
> >>
> >> It's a war!
> >
> >Yes, that was a mistake too.
>
> Then you need to paint a clear picture of what the alternative was.
Not starting a war. Not when the only reason was that you wanted that
war. Or at least not going in without a real plan. But that would take
someone worthy to be a president. Which just proves that Bush has to
go. He fucked up. Not that this was the only time.
> How exactly would Senator John Kerry have gotten Saddam removed from
> power? What exact steps would he have taken?
Why exactly would he? Because he "tried to kill my dad"?
> Why does Kerry never answer that question?
Why would he? He didn't start a war for no good reason. And no
"he'snot a nice person" is no reason to start a war - or do you
condone 9/11?
> What European countries would have supported him? Note: France was
> already moving to get *all* the sanctions lifted from Saddam's Iraq?
None. It wasn't about who was president, but about the reasons. Are
you Bush himself? You are stupid enough.
And I DO mean none, because Kerry wouldn't have asked for "reasons to
start a war with Iraq", that he could fool some dumb enough with.
Lars T.
Phil Earnhardt
<dfritzi...@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <nplvn0tkv4tshhc2p...@4ax.com>,
> Phil Earnhardt <p...@dim.com> wrote:
>
>> On 27 Oct 2004 09:31:40 -0700, Lars.T...@epost.de (Lars Tr?ger)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Phil Earnhardt <p...@dim.com> wrote in message
>> >news:<m3gun0hsst1dr825t...@4ax.com>...
>> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:01:40 GMT, David Fritzinger
>> >> <dfritzi...@mac.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Yet, every day, the news shows more and more mistakes.
>> >>
>> >> It's a war!
>> >
>> >Yes, that was a mistake too.
>>
>> Then you need to paint a clear picture of what the alternative was.
>> How exactly would Senator John Kerry have gotten Saddam removed from
>> power? What exact steps would he have taken?
>
>Why does anyone have to do that?
Because Saddam was manipulating the UN to get all sanctions removed.
And he was ready and prepared to immediately re-start his WMD program
the second those sanctions were gone. Read the WSJ article! I'll post
it shortly.
> It is possible (indeed, probable) the
>US would have been better off if we had just left Saddam in power.
Not even Senator John Kerry would say something so foolish!
> He
>was certainly emasculated. Had no WMD.
No WMD Stockpiles! And he was ready to re-start the program instantly.
>No ties to al Qaeda.
Oops. You claimed no *substantial* ties in an earlier posting. Which
is it?
> Not much of
>an army. The only people he was capable of hurting were the Iraqis.
HE WAS READY TO RE-START HIS WMD PROGRAMS IN AN INSTANT. Right after
the sanctions were removed. And he was bribing several countries to
have that happen.
Read the WSJ article.
And ask youself: why isn't the NYT reporting on that?
>> Why does Kerry never answer that question?
>
>Possibly because it is an inane question.
Because it would trap him in a lie. His Brain Trust knows that getting
UNSC approval to invade Iraq would have been problematic. But he
wallows in the ambibuity that he would have somehow "done it better"
-- but never ever saying how!
>> What European countries would have supported him? Note: France was
>> already moving to get *all* the sanctions lifted from Saddam's Iraq?
>
>Evidence?
Read the WSJ article I'm posting today. Please.
> Certainly, as long as sanctions were maintained, Saddam was no
>threat to the US.
Bingo. He was well on the way to get all UN sanctions removed. He was
getting good mileage on his "Oil for Food" kickbacks.
Read the article.
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
>> You called me a "troll" and then provided your definition: to you, a
>> "troll" is someone who happens to disagree with you. How quaint.
>>
>> I'm willing to debate with you on anything about the election. You are
>> the one who is not willing.
>>
>> All you can do is bottom-post with personal insults. It's not really a
>> good use of your time, "John".
>>
>>
>>> What is
>>>your opinion of Bush REFUSING AN ORDER to get his flight physical 1
>>>month after mandatory drug testing for flight physicals was instituted?
>>
>>
>> 1. Your shouting does not impress me. And it does nothing to add
>> credibility to your case.
>>
>> 2. The documents that "proved" that allegation have been shown to be
>> forged.
>>
>
>Killians secretary stated that Bush did refuse the order and that
>Killian was upset about it.
Gosh. "John" is actually debating points. Thanks for providing the
hearsay about Bush here. Do you have a reference for that?
Why is it that Senator John Kerry *still* has not signed the papers to
completely release his military records?
What is he afraid of?
"John": how about going back to the posting claiming the "facts" about
GW Bush that you failed to respond to?
Thanks!
--phil
Phil Earnhardt
<fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
>> >> >Gee, Phil... Snit actually asked a question that was relevant to what he
>> >> >was discussing for a change. Was there a particular reason that you
>> >> >showed your hypocritical colors and avoided it:)
>> >>
>> >> You are right: Snit ignored the question; I asked it again.
>> >
>> >Was that your attempt to prove you have a reading disability? Good job,
>> >Phil... very effective.
>>
>> Thank you. Snit has since spoken about the question.
>
>That Snit has realized the depth of your reading disability to the point
>where he has spoken about it holds no particular relevance here.
You don't run the discussion here, buckeroo.
Snit ignored one quesiton in one posting. He replied in a later
posting. Contrast with you: you failed to respond to the simple
questions I was asking time and time again. Do you see the difference?
>> >> You failed to answer my questions in at least a half-dozen postings
>> >> before I concluded that you had no interest whatsoever in answering
>> >> them.
>> >
>> >So then... you are admitting you are a hypocrite.
>>
>> Hardly. I'm saying I didn't pass judgment on you after one posting,
>> and I won't do that with Snit, either.
>
>Non sequitur.
That's an incorrect conjecture.
> Are you admitting that you are a hypocrite?
You are trying to change the subject again. Snit answers my questions.
You do not.
> It does you
>little good to deny it when I have provided objective evidence that
>*proves* the fact.
Steve: you have not.
>> I gave you the benefit of the doubt, too -- until you continued to
>> fail to answer the questions.
>
>Your delusion
That's another conjecture: #4 for this message.
> that I failed to answer your questions no more proves I
>did what you claimed then did your subjective conclusion based on Snit's
>information that didn't prove a thing (other than the fact that I posted
>to usenet at certain times, though, even that may be manipulated).
Sorry. It would take me about an hour to unravel that paragraph. And
there's no benefit: it is a meaningless statement. I could probably
count 3 or 4 conjectures in the statement. Lets just say you're up to
#7 for this message.
>> >Do you understand the difference between alluding to something and
>> >making an allegation, Phil?
>>
>> No. I have no tolerance for your innuendo, Steve. It has no point in
>> any pubic discussion here.
>
>I care not for your tolerance.
Well, thanks for sharing!
Your insults have no place in the discussion. I reject them.
Now: what was the point of this posting, Steve?
--phil