It just amazes me the Jesusesque pedestal that you lefties place Kerry on. Here's the guy that before he got the nomination was considered a joke by his own party for even running, alot of snickering up the coat sleeves going on. Now he's going to save the world, yet what plans he's actually tried to lay out have proven to be unattainable or just plain wrong. Certainly;at the very best, a Kerry president will only be the equal of the worst picture you can conjure in your mind of Bush's term.

Now back to our story. The new buzzword in the media for a story of this nature is "fluid", and certainly this one qualifies as we are getting new info almost hourly and all of it runs counter to Kerry position.
Who is questioning Kerry's position on this issue? Nearly everyone, including notable left-leaning media outlets. The Kerry campaign is trying to support Johnny's position by saying "he didn't say that", yet you can watch 15min of cable news and watch him say that.
Who is questioning the facts in this story? Everyone exept Kerry, the NYT, and that Elbardi cat (who likely fed this story to Kerry). Even Kerry's own campaign admits that the facts are unknown. (which is the responsible way to approach a still unfolding story)

What is the motivation? We all know now that it was Elbardi/IAEA who leaked the supposed "story"; certainly one could question job security interests on their part, but what of the UN as a whole? It would seem that a pro-UN Kerry president might help them to stifle the US Congress' demands for deeper investigation into the corruption related to the oil-for-food debacle (see AIG ins./Big Dig/John Kerry).

Our fluid story; as of this morning 3 particular things come into question, 1) 380 tons, it appears that this total may be an aggregate of materials under watch by the IAEA; not these explosives only. We'll have to wait for the facts. 2) 158 tons, now it appears that the IAEA is saying that 158 of the 380 was missing in Jan '03, not the roughly 10% reported earlier. 3) 3 tons, two major news outlet have gotten their hands on an internal IAEA memo stating that there were but 3 tons of the explosives in question in Jan '03.
And John Kerry continues to insist that 380 tons of explosives are missing, facts be damned. (when we get the facts)

Did Russia manage to haul away the explosives between satellite and U-2 flyovers? I don't know and personally doubt Russias involvement, but I'll keep an open mind until we get the facts.
Now if there is no way that Russia could have moved these explosives with the satellite and U-2s watching due to the sheer size and volume involved, could someone please explain to me how they could have been moved later with the satellites and U-2s watching and 2 types of UAVs watching and aircraft mounted gun cameras watching and imbedded reporters with cameras watching and thousands of US troop's eyes watching?????

John Kerry continues to slap the face of our fighting men and women with his stance, challenge the competance of all the media (-NYT) with his stance, and assume wide spread ignorance of the general populace with his stance. What is he a fool? He's no fool, he knows exacly what he's doing-there's your leader wannabe on a pedestal

What a load of undigested babble. There are witnesses who saw the looting after US army swept through the area.
The one thing you cry-babies need to learn is that at least for now it is perfectly legitimate to criticize how this war is being handled. Don't at every moment invoke that this is against our fighting men. Putting them into harms way when better management could have prevented it--that's inexcusable.
This is till a democracy. This might change in less than a week, but let's enjoy it while it lasts.

How many 500 pound bombs can you carry across the desert Beethoven?

Apparently people rented trucks to carry off the loot. Of ocurse, this information comes from eye witnesses interviewed by the New York Times, that left wing rag.

Yeah, they saw the looting of office furniture and windo panes; somehow I think 1500+ donkey carts loaded with explosives would have been noticed, unless you stand with Kerry's assessment that our troops are to stupid to notice such a thing. Why can't you guys just admit it, Kerry f@cked the pooch on this. I know it's not what you want to hear, but these things happen.
Yeah, still a democratic republic for those who aren't still whining about Gore losing in '00; but soon to be a UN-chartered socialist regime???

I said I was out of this, but one major point needs to be made(maybe has I stopped reading).

You can argue about whether Bush should have invaded Iraq or not, fine. But as opposed to Vietnam Bush saw the mistakes there and was not going to repeat them. He put full command and control with the Generals. If you have a problem with how the ground troops went about their duty, you are not second guessing Bush, you are second guessing our Generals and the military in general. Unless you believe the troops rang Bush on the phone saying"should we guard this building?" I fail to see how you pin this on him(if you believe there was an error, I do not).

To say "We are for the troops" then proceed to rip how they went about their duty (without the facts and only assumptions that they even made any mistakes) is pathetic.

This is NOT Vietnam, Bush is NOT giving battle instructions from Washington. This is a good thing.

I will concede that you have some legitimate grips with Bush, this however is not one of them. It's shameless really.

This IS VIETNAM. This IS THE QUAGMIRE THAT VIETNAM WAS. How can it be anything else? Iraq and Vietnam share the same no-win situation of political and cultural influence. The one difference is Vietnam lasted ten years before we realized we lost the war.

With that said, you and yours have to get over the poor argument that anyone against this current Vietnam (or Iraqnam)is against the troops. It's a blanket belief that smacks of Republican desperation to defend the administration's half-measured insistence that Iraq be taken over. Not one article I've read or news account I've seen, has suggested the entire debacle in Iraq is the fault of the troops. Yes, there are isolated incidents, but many critics of this war realize this is not the overall manner in which the troops are operating.

What the Iraq criticism is truly about is the management (or lack thereof) of the troops. It's about Bush and his piss-poor direction, intelligence, and his glee - God-sent or otherwise - to democratize and take over an oil-rich nation. This is about he needlessly putting these troops in harm's way with the lie of WMDs when in conclusion there is nothing that suggests Iraq was a threat to the U.S.

So enough of the "you're against the troops" argument. You people truly show your urgency to look for scapegoats in lieu of correctly-founded issues that this is an unjustifiable war. In short, you fail almost by want to see the entire picture of Iraq - that if it wasn't for Bush's myopic, short-sighted obsession with the country, its Mid-East positioning and lastly, its oil...

1) 1,100+ troops wouldn't be dead;

2) we'd have more credibility as a nation, and

3) we wouldn't be in a quagmire - just like we were in Vietnam.

That was special:)

So you think:

1. The explosives were there when we arrived

and

2. Bush told the Generals not to guard them

Or did you just avoid the question and go off on a rant? I don't see any other choices.

other choices.
 

I figured either someone peed in dd's Cheerios, or he is just trying to play devils advocate. . . . in a throw the loser kerry a bone kind of a way. :)

For what it's worth I never said anyone against this war is against the troops. I said if you disect this particular situation blaming Bush is irrational as he was not involved in the on-the-ground decisions (as well he shouldn't be). Read into it all you want, but thats the truth of what I said.

Re: other choices.
 

Don't eat, Cherrios, professor. I eat falsehoods like Lendaddy's idea Iraq is no Vietnam.

Give me a break.

Why don't either of you two tell me what the hell Iraq is. Tell me, first of all, if Iraq is...

1) Stable enough for elections.

2) Is or was a proven threat to the U.S.

3) A stepping stone toward civility in the Middle-East.

There's no "playing" devil's advocate with me in this QUAGMIRE. And Island, I throw no one a bone. Kerry's potentially as miserable as Bush - but let's not mistake the facts: your boy GW got us in this QUAGMIRE, didn't he?

Now isn't that "special?"

Re: Re: other choices.
 

1) You have a point. We have a lot of rebuilding to do until we are back to the reality of elections, which the Iraiis once enjoyed.

(insert pic; VOTE: saddam -- or -- kill my family, and torture me now ballot)


2) GW Bush and our military brought the fight to the terrorists. Saddam was a terrorist; he paid big cash for terrorist hits.

3) With out a doubt, a strong stance against terrorists in the middle east IS a stepping stone toward civility. (or would you argue that our Normandy invation was not a stepping stone toward civility in Nazi Germany? )

On the subject of responsibility:

Guliani blames the troops

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/saintrudy.wmv

The president was cautious the president was prudent the president did what a commander in chief should do. No matter how you try to blame it on the president the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?

Kennedy Invoked


Kerry recalled how President John Kennedy took the blame for the bungled Bay of Pigs operation in Cuba in 1961.

"Can you imagine President Kennedy ... standing up and telling the American people he couldn't think of a single mistake that he had made? When the Bay of Pigs went sour, John Kennedy had the courage to look America in the eye and say to America 'I take responsibility, it is my fault."'

Challenging Bush, Kerry said: "Mr. President, it is long since time for you to start taking responsibility for the mistakes that you've made."

Fine, you want to sway the conversation. Iraq is NOT a vietnam Saying so is an emotional play at best.

1. The government has been supplanted, we are not at war against Iraq anymore rather we are at war "with" the Iraqi people against the rebellion.

2. There are no governmental allies to our enemy, they are not receiving large scale support and weapons from other countries. (yea yea I know some Saudis help em)

3. The enemy is not a "real" army, we are not going up against an army with even mildly comperable weapons/systems/tactics.

4. The size of our enemy is a joke in comparison, not even close.

5. We control the capitol, we are not in need of taking over "The North" if you will. Aside from a couple cities the ground attack is OVER/DONE/ WE WON!

6. The scale of our casualties in miniscule by comparison, truly miniscule. Call me callous or whatever, it is a fact. To compare the two wars in this respect makes you look the fool.

I could keep going, but I wont. Is it a quagmire? Perhaps in some political respects, but certainly not in the same way Vietnam was. Remember we were NEVER in control of the North. It is my opinion that those who say these two wars were cut from the same cloth will be laughed at by history. Such beliefs are emotional rather than rational. Special or not it's just the way it is.

By the way, Somalia would be closer to a mini Vietnam only because we gave up as a political move when the public saw [gasp] war is ugly and also our boys were hamstrung by their own leaders in much the same way.

Wow, that's great. Coming from the guy who REFUSES to take responsibility for the Vietnam Vet's he sold-out.

So folks, where does the proverbial buck stop? If you listen to administration apologists, the responsibility for this munitions give-away lies with the military, the UN, Iraqi insurgents and/or the liberals.

GW will not admit to ANY mistakes from his presidency (from debate #3, GW admitted mistakenly appointing someone to a job. That's it!). Before the war, Bush stated he didn't consult with his father, HW, who had faced the same set of problems some 10 years earlier. You'd think Dad could share some valuable lessons and insights with his son on this admittedly weighty subject. Nope. Instead, GW consults with God. How then can our President, who says he speaks with God, admit to any failure of God's advice?

I am not being sarcastic or disrespectful to Christianity - just wondering about our president who adheres to a voice from God to affect his decision making process.

There's been many versions of what went down since the initial missing bullets report surfaced. The original story has been followed up by clarification and spin (i.e.bending the truth). At this point, many have taken a position based on real or suppossed "facts". I'll leave it at that.

Seque to this:
As with many issues in this presidency and election, there's a tendency for many people to only listen to what they want to believe. They then discount and/or ignore information not supporting those ideas. As I've come to realize, in this election or with life issues in general, there's little room for discussion or even with self-understanding with those holding strong beliefs. Facts take a back seat to strongly held beliefs. IMHO, that is not a highly regarded trait for a sitting president and not a helpful personality trait for anyone not president.

If you disagree, you might be a true believer and we understand.

Sherwood

Hahaha. . . thats great Sherwood.:D If anyone dare disagree with you, that makes them some sort of blind to the facts zelot . . but your position. . . haha. . your position is one of being oh-so neutral to make you qualified to render these judgements.http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1098992333.gif

oh man that's good. :D Thanks, man.

every thread need some good humor.

Island,
Whatever.

Sherwood