0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 10:24 pm
Quote:
I guess you buy the idea that 377 tons (i.e., 754,000 lbs.) of explosive powders packed in barrels can be removed from al Qaqaa, within four weeks after the US military first entered al Qaqaa in April, and before the US military confirmed in May those explosive powders were missing, without attracting the attention and resistance of our satellite watchers, our airforce, and our ground force.


Yes, I do.

David Kay was on CNN Headline news giving interviews tonight, and when asked this exact same question responded that he absolutelty believed it.

He cited 'many instances' of seeing widespread looting on foot, using horses and donkeys, and using small vehicles all over Iraq, and said you would be shocked how quickly they can move massive amounts of material...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 06:41 am
ican711nm wrote:
I've been around on this planet long enough to realize that government in general and our presidents and other elected and appointed officials in particular have committed numerous serious blunders that have led to great harm to our people. It seems to go with the territory. George Bush has proven himself no exception. As a senator John Kerry has proven himself no exception.

The question with which we are confronted whether we like it or not is: Which candidate will do the least harm if elected?

Strangely, those opposed to Bush have directed their attention almost exclusively to why they think Bush is bad. Whereas we who favor Bush have directed our attention to why we think Bush is good and why we think Bush is bad (e.g., the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq is good; the stabilization of Afghanistan and Iraq is bad). So let's hear from you Bush bashers why you think Kerry is good and why you think Kerry is bad. Then let's debate which one, Kerry or Bush, will do the least harm if elected.


I believe that if it turned out that Bush was a murdering serial killer you guys would say, "yea, but what about Kerry, how will he be any better..."
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 06:45 am
Ican wrote
Quote:
I've been around on this planet long enough to realize that government in general and our presidents and other elected and appointed officials in particular have committed numerous serious blunders that have led to great harm to our people. It seems to go with the territory. George Bush has proven himself no exception. As a senator John Kerry has proven himself no exception.


That is a fallacious statement. While it is true that Bush has a proven record of errors, blunders and missteps that have brought this nation to the brink of tragedy. Kerry on the other hand has not. He has never been in the position to do so. Whatever you believe regarding Kerry is purely speculation on your part.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 09:05 am
Well said au1929, you are right.

I am beginning to think that it is unfair that GWB take all the blame for all the total crap he has done. He probably had no idea. He was advised by people he respected, people who had advised his father, people who seemed to be intelligent. How was he to know they had no common sense? He is probably bewildered by many a turn of events, and probably has little idea why he is so reviled, and why these clever men have made him such a failure.

Please, please, send him back home to his ranch, where he can practise chewing pretzels.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 09:10 am
NYTimes.com > Opinion





OP-ED COLUMNIST

Letting Down the Troops

By BOB HERBERT

Published: October 29, 2004

Not long ago I interviewed a soldier who was paralyzed from injuries he had suffered in a roadside bombing in Iraq. Like so many other wounded soldiers I've talked to, he expressed no anger and no bitterness about the difficult hand he's been dealt as a result of the war.

But when I asked this soldier, Eugene Simpson Jr., a 27-year-old staff sergeant from Dale City, Va., whom he had been fighting in Iraq - who, exactly, the enemy was - he looked up from his wheelchair and stared at me for a long moment. Then, in a voice much softer than he had been using for most of the interview, and with what seemed like a mixture of sorrow, regret and frustration, he said: "I don't know. That would be my answer. I don't know."

We have not done right by the troops we've sent to Iraq to fight this crazy, awful war. We haven't given them a clear mission, and we haven't protected them well. I'm reminded of the famous scene in "On the Waterfront" when Terry Malloy, the character played by Marlon Brando, tells his brother: "You shoulda looked out for me a little bit. You shoulda taken care of me just a little bit."

The thing to always keep in mind about our troops in Iraq is that they were sent to fight the wrong war. America's clearly defined and unmistakable enemy, Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, was in Afghanistan. So the men and women fighting and dying in Iraq were thrown into a pointless, wholly unnecessary conflict.

That tragic move was made worse by the failure of the U.S. to send enough troops to effectively wage the war that we started in Iraq. And we never fully equipped the troops we did send. The people who ordered up this war had no idea what they were doing. They were wildly overconfident, blinded by hubris and a dangerous, overarching ideology. They thought it would be a cakewalk.

In May of 2003, President Bush thought the war was over. It had barely begun. Many thousands have died in the long and bloody months since then. Even now, Dick Cheney, with a straight face, is calling Iraq "a remarkable success story."

One of the worst things about the management of this war is the way we've treated our men and women in uniform. The equipment shortages experienced by troops shoved into combat have been unconscionable. Soldiers and marines, in many cases, have been forced to face enemy fire with flak jackets from the Vietnam era that were all but useless, and sometimes without any body armor at all. Relatives back home have had to send the troops such items as radios and goggles, and even graphite to keep their weapons from jamming.

One of the most ominous signs about the war is the growing disenchantment of the troops. They've spent too much time on the most dangerous roads in the world without the proper training, without up-to-date equipment, without the proper armor for their vehicles and without the support they feel they should be getting from their Iraqi allies.

The Times's Edward Wong, after a series of interviews with marines in the Sunni-dominated city of Ramadi, wrote:

"They said the Iraqi police and National Guard are unhelpful at best and enemy agents at worst, raising doubts about President Bush's assertion that local forces would soon help relieve the policing duties of the 138,000 American troops in Iraq. The marines said they could use better equipment from the Pentagon, and they feared that the American people were ignorant of the hardships they faced in this dessicated land."

Several members of an Army Reserve unit refused a direct order to deliver fuel along a dangerous route in Iraq a couple of weeks ago. They said their trucks were not armored and were prone to breaking down. An example of the kind of catastrophe they were seeking to avoid came just a week later, when 49 unarmed and otherwise unprotected Iraqi soldiers were attacked and killed in cold blood in a remote region of eastern Iraq.

This has been a war run by amateurs and incompetents. Whatever anyone has felt about the merits of the war, there is no excuse for preparing so poorly and for failing to see, at a minimum, that the troops were properly trained and equipped.

The United States has the most powerful military in history, yet it is bogged down in a humiliating quagmire in a country that was barely functional to begin with. We've dealt ourselves the cruelest of hands in Iraq. We can't win this war and, tragically, we don't know how to end it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/opinion/29herbert.html?th

And the Buck stops at the oval office. Or it should !
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 09:16 am
October 29, 2004, 9:04 a.m.

Dangerous ConsistencyLink
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 10:09 am
Ican suggests that both sides lay out the strengths and weaknesses we see in our respective candidates and then debate which woiuld be best (or most harmful) for the country as President.

Revel responds
Quote:
I believe that if it turned out that Bush was a murdering serial killer you guys would say, "yea, but what about Kerry, how will he be any better..."


So, how would Kerry be any better? How responsible is it anytime, let alone in wartime with troops in the field, to buy a pig in a poke against a known seasoned incumbant with recognizable strengths and weaknesses?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 10:22 am
This was posted on the Bookies and Polls thread:

http://www.able2know.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10156/Mil%20Vote.jpg
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 10:30 am
10:27 a.m. Friday, October 29, the military is on TV explaining how they did rout Iraqi forces at Al-qa-qaa and removed a large portion of the more dangerous explosives that were there. Yes, the stuff was taken....by US.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 11:02 am
Foxfyre
Well it took a little time. But I must give them credit. The Pentagon and the Bushites were able to piece together a story. No I do not want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 11:05 am
Okay Au. The Brooklyn Bridge is no longer for sale. But I am mystified. If you do not believe the Bush administration, the Pentagon, and/or military commanders in the field who administered destruction of the munitions, what is it that makes you believe John Kerry's rush to judgment?
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 11:09 am
It's called partisanship Fox. Pure and simple. If authorities say something you don't wish to believe, then they are obviously making it up.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 11:26 am
Because it took them several days to cook up the trumped up story and it goes against all that has be said and reported. I wonder what they promised or threatened the commanders in the field with. As for being partisan anyone who would believe that pack of lies is not only partisan but------ fill in.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 11:27 am
The only one who trumped up a story was your side Au.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 11:54 am
So let's see if I've got this right... the stuff is packed in bunkers, sealed, it's in a remote enough area that security could be maintained and we decided to move the stuff elsewhere rather than blow it up as we've supposedly done with another 400,000 tons. Yeah-huh.

So by now I'm sure it's in another more secure area and that would be????

Joe
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 12:02 pm
Here's how I honestly see it Joe. The stuff was there at some point. Now it is not there. That is all we the public know for sure. Did US forces get rid of it? Did it get stolen? Were US forces remiss in allowing it to disappear?

Well, we have one group, the US military, saying basically they got rid of it. That group was on the ground at the time and is probably in a better position to know what happened to it than others. But sure, could they be just covering their butts? Of course.

We have others saying the stuff was missing, implying that it was stolen/removed by parties unknown. I guess it could have been. I tend to discount that since the supposed tonnage of the material would have required an awful lot of trucks to move it. And I don't see how this could have gotten past even the most inept of military force.

Bottom line is, each of us will think what we think, probably along partisan lines.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 12:10 pm
CNN.com big headline right now: Harsh words on the trail

FOX.com big headline right now: GI: We Took Out Explosives

NYtimes.com big headline right now: Bush and Kerry Offer Competing Visions of the Future

Washingtimes.com big headline right now: Photos point to removal of weapons




Anyone else see the difference?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 12:26 pm
CoastalRat wrote:
Bottom line is, each of us will think what we think, probably along partisan lines.
Na. Some of us will give the Soldiers the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Others have a predisposition for finding fault in the United States Military whenever possible. Regardless of what happened, I'd bet 1,000 to one the decision as to what to do with this particular site was not made in the oval office… and consequently had little to do with George Bush. Those who believe nothing would fall through the cracks under different leadership are fools. Perfection isn't possible, so no isolated incident deserves this much play… regardless of how much merit the story has. John Kerry's willingness to whore out the story before it can even be authenticated is indicative only of his own distrust and lack of respect for the United States Military. What's new?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 12:28 pm
I found this on the net today:

Quote:
October 29, 2004

Ashcroft: FBI Halliburton Probe Just 'Halloween Prank'

(2004-10-29) -- Attorney General John Ashcroft told a news conference this morning that the widening of the FBI investigation into whether the Pentagon improperly awarded no-bid contracts to Halliburton was "simply a Halloween prank."

"I called President Bush this morning and yelled, "Psyche! Gotcha!'," said a smiling Mr. Ashcroft. "We both thought it was so outlandish that no one would fall for it, but apparently some reporters have no sense of humor."

Mr. Ashcroft said he thought it would be "patently absurd" to suggest that the president's most conservative political appointee would allow one of his departments to broaden its probe of the vice president's former company just days before the election?

"We all had a big laugh writing up the phoney news release," said Mr. Ashcroft. "The funniest part is the idea that Cheney would let this happen during his de facto presidency. Imagine!"
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 01:15 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Okay Au. The Brooklyn Bridge is no longer for sale. But I am mystified. If you do not believe the Bush administration, the Pentagon, and/or military commanders in the field who administered destruction of the munitions, what is it that makes you believe John Kerry's rush to judgment?


happy friday foxy.

problem with the press con for me was, the major didn't recall "what we took" from the bunker. just "ammunition".

and as i understood the exchanges, the video was date stamped at a week after the major was there.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.73 seconds on 07/08/2025 at 10:09:02