1
   

CBS, the Kerry campaign, and dirty politics

 
 
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 12:56 pm
Here we go again.

Just as 60 Minutes is planning to air an 'October Surprise' with the story of missing explosives, the Kerry campaign is preparing an ad on the story.

Is this once again a coordinated effort between libs at CBS/60 Minutes and Democrats, as the whole fake document story appeared to be?

It never ceases to amaze me how dirty 'progressives' and libs let themselves get in order to regain power.

Obviously, I expect all of my liberal A2K buds to bring up every Repub dirty trick. Go ahead, but when you are done bashing the right, please try to explain this latest caper.....
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,623 • Replies: 51
No top replies

 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 01:42 pm
It never ceases to amaze me how the Kerry campaign and the facts do a tag-team on Bush.

Why, it seems if there's a brand-new news story that hurts Bush every week these days! It must be the Kerry campaign running things.

Wake the f*ck up. Kerry is just smart enough to take advantage of the current admin's mistakes.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 01:50 pm
Smart? Kerry jumped all over the explosives story, yet NBC news is reporting that the explosives were already missing when U.S. troops arrived at the storage location on April 10, 2003. The last time the IAEA saw the explosives was three months earlier in January of 2003. Nobody can say exactly when the explosives were removed. Sometime between January and April, 2003. Nobody failed to guard anything. There was no story. The explosives were gone when we got there.

Nevertheless, is certainly does appear the mainstream liberal media was setting up for another 11th hour ambush, as was done in 2000. CBS and NY Times SHOULD be embarrassed ... but of course they're not.

The mainstream media continues to believe that truth is no impediment in their quest to oust the current President.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 01:56 pm
They shouldn't be embarassed.

There's no truth whatsoever to the idea that the weapons were 'removed' before we got there. What you are hearing is desperate spin from the admin.

from www.talkingpointsmemo.com :

Quote:


(October 26, 2004 -- 03:03 PM EDT // link // print)
Okay, now can we say that the NBC Nightly News report that the explosives at al Qaqaa were already gone when the first US troops arrived -- the one Drudge goaded CNN into running with far harder than NBC ever did -- is now officially no longer operative?

Earlier we noted that MSNBC had interviewed a member of the NBC news crew that was embedded with the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade, which visited the al Qaqaa facility on the April 10th, 2003.

She said they didn't do any search. They were there on a "pit stop" on the way to Baghdad.

Now, NBC's Jim Miklaszewski just went on MSNBC with this follow-up (emphasis added) ...

Following up on that story from last night, military officials tell NBC News that on April 10, 2003, when the Second Brigade of the 101st Airborne entered the Al QaQaa weapons facility, south of Baghdad, that those troops were actually on their way to Baghdad, that they were not actively involved in the search for any weapons, including the high explosives, HMX and RDX. The troops did observe stock piles of conventional weapons but no HMX or RDX. And because the Al Qaqaa facility is so huge, it's not clear that those troops from the 101st were actually anywhere near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX. Three months earlier, during an inspection of the Al Qaqaa compound, the International Atomic Energy Agency secured and sealed 350 metric tons of HMX and RDX. Then in March, shortly before the war began, the I.A.E.A. conducted another inspection and found that the HMX stockpile was still intact and still under seal. But inspectors were unable to inspect the RDX stockpile and could not verify that the RDX was still at the compound.
Pentagon officials say elements of the 101st airborne did conduct a thorough search of several facilities around the Al QaQaa compound for several weeks during the month of April in search of WMD. They found no WMD. And Pentagon officials say it's not clear at that time whether those other elements of the 101st actually searched the Al QaQaa compound.
[/size]

Now, Pentagon officials say U.S. troops and members of the Iraq Survey Group did arrive at the Al QaQaa compound on May 27. And when they did, they found no HMX or RDX or any other weapons under seal at the time. Now, the Iraqi government is officially said that the high explosives were stolen by looters. Pentagon officials claim it's possible -- they're not sure, they say, but it's possible that Saddam Hussein himself ordered that these high explosives be removed and hidden before the war. What is clear is that the 350 metric tons of high explosives are still missing, and that the U.S. or Iraqi governments or international inspectors, for that matter, cannot say with any certainty where they are today.



Poor CNN.


So,

The official Iraqi gov't line is that looters got it. THere was an inspection in March (that would have been right about when we were attacking) that showed the explosives were still there.

Don't buy the hype. We dropped the ball on this one.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 01:57 pm
For a conservative to be accusing liberals of "dirty politics"...is like Rush Limbaugh calling someone else a loud-mouthed, over-weight idiot.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 01:59 pm
Or a drug-addicted freak...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 02:11 pm
You have provided absolutely no proof that the explosives were removed prior to US Military arriving at the base. If you feel you have, please point it out.

http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editorial200410260951.asp

Quote:
October 26, 2004, 9:51 a.m.
The Vanishing Story
Kerry's Monday talking points were weak.

Explosives are missing in Iraq. This news ordinarily would not be the stuff of breathless political attacks, but in the final days of a presidential election anything will do - especially if you are John Kerry, waging your campaign on whatever fodder the New York Times happens to provide you on any given day. The latest is Monday's Times story detailing how powerful conventional explosives, HMX and RDX, were removed from a huge weapons site in Iraq called Al Qaqaa.

In the larger context of Iraq, this is hardly surprising. The country is bristling with weapons and explosives. According to the Duelfer report, 10,000 weapons sites have been reviewed and cleared since the war; 240,000 tons of explosives have been destroyed; and another 160,000 tons have been consolidated for destruction. Given the massive amount of material in play, it's not shocking that some of it would go missing or fall into the wrong hands. But the conception of immaculate warfare held by Bush's critics does not allow for such unfortunate incidents or operational mistakes - the realities of war.

The story of Al Qaqaa is more complicated than anti-Bush partisans are portraying it. According to the Times, U.N. weapons inspectors discovered Al Qaqaa after the first Gulf War. The powerful explosives, which can be used as the trigger in a nuclear device, weren't destroyed then because Saddam pleaded to keep them for use in mining and construction (uh-huh). After the inspectors were booted in 1998 and returned in late 2002, they realized that 35 tons of HMX had been taken in the meantime. So it is clear that the inspections process Kerry and others wanted to rely on to deal with Saddam was inadequate.

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.

Then again, it is not inconceivable that the explosives were taken in postwar looting, as Iraqi officials have said. In which case, the administration should have paid more attention to securing the facility amid the postwar chaos. But such mistakes are endemic to warfare. John Kerry's position is that he won't tell us whether or not he would have removed the dictator who was stockpiling HMX, but in the event that he had, he would have waged the war with fewer flaws than any other major military operation in history has been waged. This posture neatly combines cowardice with opportunism and over-promising: a trifecta of contemptibility.

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.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 02:24 pm
Quote:
You have provided absolutely no proof that the explosives were removed prior to UN Military arriving at the base. If you feel you have, please point it out.


This doesn't even make any sense. What UN military?

In the absence of proof of the explosives being removed prior to the US invasion, we must assume that they were removed during the period after.

Quote:
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.


This = not true. See my earlier link. You may want to actually read my links if you want to discuss this.

You really shouldn't rely on the National review for your analysis, any more than I would rely upon Commondreams or DemocraticUnderground. Definately not trustworthy.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 02:24 pm
Or asking Kerry to stick to a single side of an issue...
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 02:29 pm
Damn that CBS and their low blow politics.....you'd think they were a Sinclair Broadcasting station....
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 02:36 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Or asking Kerry to stick to a single side of an issue...


Laughing
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 02:36 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
This doesn't even make any sense. What UN military?


It doesn't make sense NOW, but it will should Kerry be elected. (I obviously mis-typed. Should have read "US Military.")

You are quibbling with the National Review for its statement that NBC said the 101st "searched" the site, when all they said was they arrived and did not find the explosives?

Quote:
"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.


I think the point trying to be made by Kerry is that the explosives were there and Bush allowed them to be looted later. I'm suggesting there is no proof of that. You claim that "in the absence of proof of the explosives being removed prior to the US invasion, we must assume that they were removed during the period after."

Why do you believe we must make that unsubstantiated assumption?
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 02:55 pm
Guess what, it doesn't matter wether the explosives were removed prior to the invasion or afterwards. If the explosives weren't there, Bush should still have allocated troops to guard the site since he didn't know they weren't there.

Bush failed to guard a site where tons of high explosives were likely being stored, which is sufficient reason not to vote for him regardless of wether the blooper had any consequences.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 03:08 pm
Einherjar wrote:
Guess what, it doesn't matter wether the explosives were removed prior to the invasion or afterwards. If the explosives weren't there, Bush should still have allocated troops to guard the site since he didn't know they weren't there.

Bush failed to guard a site where tons of high explosives were likely being stored, which is sufficient reason not to vote for him regardless of wether the blooper had any consequences.


Stop with the sensible statements wouldja? You're confusing everyone....
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 03:08 pm
Einherjar wrote:
Guess what, it doesn't matter wether the explosives were removed prior to the invasion or afterwards. If the explosives weren't there, Bush should still have allocated troops to guard the site since he didn't know they weren't there.

Bush failed to guard a site where tons of high explosives were likely being stored, which is sufficient reason not to vote for him regardless of wether the blooper had any consequences.


So exactly how is this Bush's fault?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 03:11 pm
Einherjar wrote:
If the explosives weren't there, Bush should still have allocated troops to guard the site since he didn't know they weren't there.


And exactly how is this a sensible statement?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 03:50 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Einherjar wrote:
If the explosives weren't there, Bush should still have allocated troops to guard the site since he didn't know they weren't there.


And exactly how is this a sensible statement?


Now, that's a sensible statement....
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 04:05 pm
Hey guys. They were there and the WMD's were not. Believe it or not.
As for dirty politics the republicans are past masters. Remember the democrats need only tell the truth it is damning enough. While the republicans need to fabricate. Have you people no conscience.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 04:10 pm
When the Democrats start telling the truth, you be sure and tell us.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 04:13 pm
MgC
MgC
You like the rest of your species wouldn't recognizee it if it hit you in the face.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » CBS, the Kerry campaign, and dirty politics
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 07/14/2024 at 11:22:05