Bush: We're Safer Now

[TheRoseLady]

"We're succeeding," Bush declares. And he says, "We're safer now."

Tons of Explosives Missing from Former Iraq Atomic Site (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6601921)

:loser:

[GSTamral]

should Bush have been there personally guarding these explosives? He's committed an immense amount of manpower towards national security. He doesn't micromanage them.

The role of leadership is not to individually micromanage each unit. It is simply to provide general direction and leadership.

Proof of that is in the fact that the military (a large contingent of vote that has a very high voter turnout) is overwhelmingly in favor of Bush.

You can question his direction all you want. I question it as well. But this is just stupid shit.

It would be the equivalent of blaming Kerry for a shoprite being robbed in Boston.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by GSTamral
should Bush have been there personally guarding these explosives? He's committed an immense amount of manpower towards national security. He doesn't micromanage them.

The role of leadership is not to individually micromanage each unit. It is simply to provide general direction and leadership.

Proof of that is in the fact that the military (a large contingent of vote that has a very high voter turnout) is overwhelmingly in favor of Bush.

You can question his direction all you want. I question it as well. But this is just stupid shit.

It would be the equivalent of blaming Kerry for a shoprite being robbed in Boston.


Tamral,

When is Bush going to take responsibility for anything? They guarded the Oil Ministry and didn't bother with the weapons dumps. Gimme a break here.

Is he PERSONALLY responsible, no, but his administration is ....I'm extremely surprised to see this sort of reasoning from you. He's in charge, he is saying he's the most capable leader - if so then prove it. Take responsibility for something.

I am however relieved that you didn't pull the liberal media card out.

[4a6c1]

My tax cut was late in the mail and I BLAME BUSH.

:D

[Nakiro]

The weapons were stolen before anyone in the army could arrive to take them.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Nakiro
The weapons were stolen before anyone in the army could arrive to take them.

You do realize that the location of this explosives dump was known for years right? That it was one the weapon inspectoirs checked up on when Saddam was in power. And that what it contained was also very well know.

You do realize that from the moment US forces 'liberated' the dump from Iraq control, it was then ignored. Not even a security guard it seems. For over a year. Despite knowing that it contained 380 tons of one of the best explosives around. An explosive where less than one pound took down the jet over Scotland. 380 tons. Unguarded for over a year.

No, Bush shouldn't have stood guard over it personally but it is a wonderful example of just how screwed up his plan for Iraq was. Another wonderful example I should say. And yet is there any doubt he will continue to proclaim how everything is proceeding on track and no mistakes were made? Just as he's been doing the entire time 380 tons were being looted by terrorists.

He carries some responsibility for the situation he got us in.

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

I bet they disappeared their way into one of our shrimpier allies' warehouses. 380 tons is an awful lot to move around without us not noticing. The link won't load from me, so if there's something in there that definitively disproves my statement, you know what that means (Commie liberal spendthrift pederast flipflopper media).

[kheldarin]

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
My tax cut was late in the mail and I BLAME BUSH.

:D

HAHA, I hope you were being sarcastic.

"Anyone but Bush!" Hehehehhehe.

[Cayge]

Originally posted by GSTamral
should Bush have been there personally guarding these explosives? He's committed an immense amount of manpower towards national security. He doesn't micromanage them.

The role of leadership is not to individually micromanage each unit. It is simply to provide general direction and leadership.

Proof of that is in the fact that the military (a large contingent of vote that has a very high voter turnout) is overwhelmingly in favor of Bush.

You can question his direction all you want. I question it as well. But this is just stupid shit.

It would be the equivalent of blaming Kerry for a shoprite being robbed in Boston.

I hope you dont drive with vision that poor.

[DeV]

The role of Presidential leadership, especially in a time of war is one of Responsibility, first and foremost.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I bet they disappeared their way into one of our shrimpier allies' warehouses. 380 tons is an awful lot to move around without us not noticing. The link won't load from me, so if there's something in there that definitively disproves my statement, you know what that means (Commie liberal spendthrift pederast flipflopper media).

It's basically a story that's in virtually every media outlet. I selected Reuters to reduce the usual liberal media bullshit. You can find it basically on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and hundreds of other outlets.

Reuters = super liberal.

- Arkans

[Parkbandit]

You might want to actually do some research on this story. Those explosives didn't just become missing yesterday.. they were missing from prior to our armed forces getting to them during the liberation. Weird how it is JUST coming to light now and weird how it's not mentioned except casually.

It's also weird how these were part of Saddam's nuclear program.. a program that far too many people here claimed he didn't have.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
You might want to actually do some research on this story. Those explosives didn't just become missing yesterday.. they were missing from prior to our armed forces getting to them during the liberation. Weird how it is JUST coming to light now and weird how it's not mentioned except casually.

It's also weird how these were part of Saddam's nuclear program.. a program that far too many people here claimed he didn't have.

Funny how so many parts of the story contradict you, PB. Such as here:


Prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the HMX had been sealed and tagged with the IAEA emblem while stored at Al Qaqaa.

Seems pretty clear that the explosives were there before US forces arrived. See, they were indeed part of Saddam's dismantled nuclear program which the weapons inspectors kept an eyes on since Saddam had to account for it all.

But feel free to actually post documentation supporting your claims that contradicts the reported news stories. If there's another side tot he story with verified and documented data, I definitely want to see it.

Raven

edited to onclude one more quote:


The New York Times report cited White House and Pentagon officials -- as well as at least one Iraqi minister -- as acknowledging that the explosives vanished from the site shortly after the U.S.-led invasion amid widespread looting.

[Edited on 10-26-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Parkbandit
You might want to actually do some research on this story. Those explosives didn't just become missing yesterday.. they were missing from prior to our armed forces getting to them during the liberation. Weird how it is JUST coming to light now and weird how it's not mentioned except casually.

It's also weird how these were part of Saddam's nuclear program.. a program that far too many people here claimed he didn't have.

Funny how so many parts of the story contradict you, PB. Such as here:


Prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the HMX had been sealed and tagged with the IAEA emblem while stored at Al Qaqaa.

Seems pretty clear that the explosives were there before US forces arrived. See, they were indeed part of Saddam's dismantled nuclear program which the weapons inspectors kept an eyes on since Saddam had to account for it all.

But feel free to actually post documentation supporting your claims that contradicts the reported news stories. If there's another side tot he story with verified and documented data, I definitely want to see it.

Raven

edited to onclude one more quote:


The New York Times report cited White House and Pentagon officials -- as well as at least one Iraqi minister -- as acknowledging that the explosives vanished from the site shortly after the U.S.-led invasion amid widespread looting.

[Edited on 10-26-2004 by Ravenstorm]

I would probably call the AP a more suitable source than your beloved Reuters... Here you go:

Timeline on missing explosives in Iraq
By Associated Press, 10/25/2004 16:24

ADVERTISEMENT

1991: The International Atomic Energy Agency placed a seal over storage bunkers holding conventional explosives known as HMX and RDX at the Al-Qaqaa facility south of Baghdad as part of U.N. sanctions that ordered the dismantlement of Iraq's nuclear program after the Gulf War. HMX is a ''dual use'' substance powerful enough to ignite the fissile material in an atomic bomb and set off a nuclear chain reaction.

January 2003: IAEA inspectors viewed the explosives at Al-Qaqaa for the last time. The inspectors took an inventory and again placed storage bunkers at Al-Qaqaa under agency seal.

February 2003: IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told the United Nations that Iraq had declared that ''HMX previously under IAEA seal had been transferred for use in the production of industrial explosives.'' This apparently did not include the HMX that remained under seal at Al-Qaqaa.

March 2003: Nuclear agency inspectors visited Al-Qaqaa for the last time but did not examine the explosives because the seals were not broken. The inspectors then pulled out of the country.

March 2003: The U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq.

After the invasion: The Pentagon said Monday that ''coalition forces were present in the vicinity at various times during and after major combat operations. The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility, but found no indicators of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). While some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals.

Oct. 10, 2004: Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology told the nuclear agency that 377 tons of explosives had disappeared from the Al-Qaqaa facility. The Iraqis said the materials were stolen and looted because of a lack of security.

Oct. 15, 2004: The IAEA informed the U.S. mission in Vienna about the disappearance. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice was informed days later, and she informed President Bush, according to White House press secretary Scott McClellan.

Oct. 23-24, 2004: The Pentagon ordered the U.S. military command in Baghdad and the Iraq Survey Group to investigate the IAEA report, the Pentagon official said, adding it was not clear how or by whom the explosives were taken or whether any of the material had been used in insurgent attacks.

Oct. 25, 2004: ElBaradei reports the explosives' disappearance to the U.N. Security Council after The New York Times reports the cache is missing.

[Parkbandit]

As you can see by the timeline there.. it's obvious to anyone except those that WANT to think it was all George Bush's doing.. but these were gone by the time we got there.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
You might want to actually do some research on this story. Those explosives didn't just become missing yesterday.. they were missing from prior to our armed forces getting to them during the liberation. Weird how it is JUST coming to light now and weird how it's not mentioned except casually.

It's also weird how these were part of Saddam's nuclear program.. a program that far too many people here claimed he didn't have.

:lol: No you didn't just rationalize this entire situation.

I truly am absolutely just about speechless.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by Parkbandit
You might want to actually do some research on this story. Those explosives didn't just become missing yesterday.. they were missing from prior to our armed forces getting to them during the liberation. Weird how it is JUST coming to light now and weird how it's not mentioned except casually.

It's also weird how these were part of Saddam's nuclear program.. a program that far too many people here claimed he didn't have.

:lol: No you didn't just rationalize this entire situation.

I truly am absolutely just about speechless.

Yea.. sucks when you are obviously wrong.. huh.

[TheRoseLady]

To put the liberal bias bullshit to rest, here it is from the Associated Press.

U.N. nuclear agency confirms that tons of explosives missing from former Iraqi base

Material can be used in atomic bomb
By William J. Kole
ASSOCIATED PRESS
9:41 a.m. October 25, 2004



Associated Press
An outside view of the Al Qaqaa complex south of Baghdad.

VIENNA, Austria – Several hundred tons of conventional explosives are missing from a former Iraqi military facility that once played a key role in Saddam Hussein's efforts to build a nuclear bomb, the U.N. nuclear agency confirmed Monday.

International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei will report the materials' disappearance to the U.N. Security Council later Monday, spokeswoman Melissa Fleming told The Associated Press.

The development immediately became an issue on the U.S. presidential campaign trail, with the White House downplaying the threat from the missing cache of weapons but Sen. John Kerry's campaign calling the disappearance a "grave and catastrophic mistake."

Fleming said the IAEA received a declaration from the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology on Oct. 10 "informing us that approximately 350 (metric) tons of high explosive material had gone missing" from the former Al-Qaqaa military installation. The sprawling site is about 30 miles south of Baghdad.

The IAEA fears "that these explosives could have fallen into the wrong hands," Fleming said.

At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter, the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.

The Iraqis told the nuclear agency the materials were stolen and looted because of a lack of security at governmental installations, Fleming said.

"We do not know what happened to the explosives or when they were looted," she told AP.

A European diplomat familiar with the disappearance of the explosives said "everyone knew it was there."

Nearly 380 tons of powerful explosives that could be used to build large conventional bombs are missing from Al-Qaqaa, The New York Times reported Monday. The 380 tons is the U.S. equivalent of the figure of 350 metric tons mentioned by the Iraqis, the IAEA said.

The newspaper said they disappeared after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq last year.

The explosives included HMX and RDX, which can be used to demolish buildings, down jetliners, produce warheads for missiles and detonate nuclear weapons. HMX and RDX are key ingredients in plastic explosives such as C-4 and Semtex – substances so powerful that Libyan terrorists needed just 1 pound to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 170 people.

Earlier this month, Iraq's interim government warned the United States and U.N. nuclear inspectors that the explosives had vanished.

"Upon receiving the declaration on Oct. 10, we first took measures to authenticate it," Fleming said. "Then on Oct. 15, we informed the multinational forces through the U.S. government with the request for it to take any appropriate action in cooperation with Iraq's interim government.

"Mr. ElBaradei wanted to give them some time to recover the explosives before reporting this loss to the Security Council, but since it's now out, ElBaradei plans to inform the Security Council today" in a letter to the council president, she said.

Bush's national security adviser, Condoleeza Rice, was informed after Oct. 15, and then she notified Bush, the White House said.

During an Air Force One trip Monday between Texas and Colorado, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the administration's first concern was whether it was a nuclear proliferation threat, and it had determined it was not.

"Remember at the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom there was some looting, and some of it was organized," McClellan said. "There were munitions caches spread throughout the country, and so these are all issues that are being looked into by the multinational forces and the Iraqi Survey Group."

The probe will include finding out what happened to the weapons and whether they are being used against U.S. forces, he said.

In Washington, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry's campaign said the Bush administration "must answer for what may be the most grave and catastrophic mistake in a tragic series of blunders in Iraq."

"How did they fail to secure ... tons of known, deadly explosives despite clear warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency to do so?" senior Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart said in a statement.

"They were urgently and specifically informed that terrorists could be helping themselves to the most dangerous explosives bonanza in history, but nothing was done to prevent it from happening."

Before the war, inspectors with the Vienna-based IAEA had kept tabs on the so-called "dual use" explosives because they could have been used to detonate a nuclear weapon. Experts say HMX can be used to create a highly powerful explosion with enough intensity to ignite the fissile material in an atomic bomb and set off a nuclear chain reaction.

IAEA inspectors pulled out of Iraq just before the 2003 invasion and have not yet been able to return despite ElBaradei's repeated urging that the experts be allowed back in to finish their work.

ElBaradei told the U.N. Security Council before the war that Iraq's nuclear program was in disarray and that there was no evidence to suggest it had revived efforts to build atomic weaponry.

Al-Qaqaa is located near Youssifiyah, an area rife with ambush attacks. An Associated Press Television News crew which drove past the compound Monday saw no visible security at the gates of the site, a jumble of low-slung, yellow storage buildings that appeared deserted.

Saddam was known to have used the site to make conventional warheads, and IAEA inspectors dismantled parts of his nuclear program there before the 1991 Gulf War. The experts also oversaw the destruction of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons.

The nuclear agency pulled out of Iraq in 1998, and by the time it returned in 2002, it confirmed that 35 tons of HMX that had been placed under IAEA seal were missing. HMX and RDX are the key components in plastic explosives, which insurgents have widely used in a series of bloody car bombings in Iraq.

ElBaradei told the United Nations in February 2003 that Iraq had declared that "HMX previously under IAEA seal had been transferred for use in the production of industrial explosives, primarily to cement plants as a booster for explosives used in quarrying."

"However, given the nature of the use of high explosives, it may well be that the IAEA will be unable to reach a final conclusion on the end use of this material," ElBaradei warned at the time.

"A large quantity of these explosives were under IAEA seal because they do have a nuclear application," Fleming said Monday.

The nuclear agency has no concrete evidence to suggest the seals were broken, Fleming said, but a diplomat familiar with the agency's work in Iraq said the seals must have been broken if the explosives were stolen.

IAEA analysts have viewed satellite photographs of Al-Qaqaa, and only two storage bunkers showed damage that may have occurred in bombing during the war, an agency source told AP. The other bunkers were intact.

[Warriorbird]

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/cl-et-rutten2oct02.column

[Ravenstorm]

At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter, the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.

Just to pull out the pertinent part of the AP story.

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

"The nuclear agency has no concrete evidence to suggest the seals were broken"

Wait, what? How do they know it's missing?

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter, the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.

Just to pull out the pertinent part of the AP story.

Raven

I never trust sources that speak on the condition of anonymity. You shouldn't either.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter, the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.

Just to pull out the pertinent part of the AP story.

Raven

I never trust sources that speak on the condition of anonymity. You shouldn't either.



Originally posted by Parkbandit
I would probably call the AP a more suitable source than your beloved Reuters...

Except when they contradict your point, is that it?

Raven

[Edited on 10-26-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[DeV]

Some people are never satisfied.

[Warriorbird]

"I never trust sources that speak on the condition of anonymity. You shouldn't either. "

:snicker: Right. I mean... that whole Watergate thing never happened.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter, the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.

Just to pull out the pertinent part of the AP story.

Raven

I never trust sources that speak on the condition of anonymity. You shouldn't either.



Originally posted by Parkbandit
I would probably call the AP a more suitable source than your beloved Reuters...

Except when they contradict your point, is that it?

Raven

[Edited on 10-26-2004 by Ravenstorm]

No.. even when they support my point. ANYONE can print that retarded line "Official spoke on the condition of anonymity" and simply make up anything that will communicate their slant.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah. Not like anyone would be silenced for speaking out in America.

[Latrinsorm]

The joke is that the AP is anonymous (I think).

[xtc]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
"We're succeeding," Bush declares. And he says, "We're safer now."

Tons of Explosives Missing from Former Iraq Atomic Site (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6601921)

:loser:

This happened a while ago why is the AP only breaking the story now?

Remember what I said about ignoring 11th hour dirty tricks from BOTH sides and their lapdogs, well here is a prime example.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by xtc
This happened a while ago why is the AP only breaking the story now?

Remember what I said about ignoring 11th hour dirty tricks from BOTH sides and their lapdogs, well here is a prime example.

You know, it helps if you really read and try to comprehend the articles. Why is it only being reported now? From the Reuters link:


VIENNA (Reuters) - Nearly 380 tons of explosives are missing from a site near Baghdad that was part of Saddam Hussein's dismantled atom bomb program but was never secured by the U.S. military, the United Nations said Monday.

And then there's...


The New York Times, which broke the story Monday...

Monday. That's today, you realize. And from the AP story, notice the dates. Such as:


Bush's national security adviser, Condoleeza Rice, was informed after Oct. 15, and then she notified Bush, the White House said.

Ten days ago. And from the timeline...


Oct. 10, 2004: Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology told the nuclear agency that 377 tons of explosives had disappeared from the Al-Qaqaa facility. The Iraqis said the materials were stolen and looted because of a lack of security.

Two weeks ago. If you want to think it's all some left wing conspiracy to make Bush look bad, feel free. But it's coming out now because now is when it's happening.

Raven

[Carl Spackler]

Originally posted by GSTamral

It would be the equivalent of blaming Kerry for a shoprite being robbed in Boston.

Too bad im reading this so late... but tamral owned you there. have a nice day.

[Warriorbird]

That pointless clarification was.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Carl Spackler

Originally posted by GSTamral

It would be the equivalent of blaming Kerry for a shoprite being robbed in Boston.

Too bad im reading this so late... but tamral owned you there. have a nice day.

Spoken like a true eighth grader who is late getting to bed. Don't forget your acne cream.

[Enoxo]

Too bad the New York Times story was completely false.

NBC News: Miklaszewski: “April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al Qakaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon.

Why is the U.N. nuclear agency suddenly warning now that insurgents in Iraq may have obtained nearly 400 tons of missing explosives -- in early 2003?

NBCNEWS Jim Miklaszewski quoted one official: "Recent disagreements between the administration and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency makes this announcement appear highly political."

So going to backfire on Kerry, who pounced on the fake story first thing yesterday.

BOOM

[Enoxo]

This just gets more amusing all the time...

New York Time's article was made possible by tips from CBS 60 Minutes!

You know, the forgers of the media?

Guess Kerry should have been paying attention to Bush in the debates instead of doodling.

BUSH: In all due respect, I'm not so sure it's credible to quote leading news organizations about -- oh, nevermind.

Do you hear that? That sound?

That's the sound of Kerry's poll points plummeting.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by xtc
This happened a while ago why is the AP only breaking the story now?

Remember what I said about ignoring 11th hour dirty tricks from BOTH sides and their lapdogs, well here is a prime example.

You know, it helps if you really read and try to comprehend the articles. Why is it only being reported now? From the Reuters link:


VIENNA (Reuters) - Nearly 380 tons of explosives are missing from a site near Baghdad that was part of Saddam Hussein's dismantled atom bomb program but was never secured by the U.S. military, the United Nations said Monday.

And then there's...


The New York Times, which broke the story Monday...

Monday. That's today, you realize. And from the AP story, notice the dates. Such as:


Bush's national security adviser, Condoleeza Rice, was informed after Oct. 15, and then she notified Bush, the White House said.

Ten days ago. And from the timeline...


Oct. 10, 2004: Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology told the nuclear agency that 377 tons of explosives had disappeared from the Al-Qaqaa facility. The Iraqis said the materials were stolen and looted because of a lack of security.

Two weeks ago. If you want to think it's all some left wing conspiracy to make Bush look bad, feel free. But it's coming out now because now is when it's happening.

Raven

The weapons depot was found empty at the beginning of the war. Thus US troop did not lose any weapons. An NBC reporter witnessed this in the earliest days of the war.

This was reported on CTV News Canada this morning between 8-9 AM.


SO WEAPONS WERE MISSING BEFORE WAR STARTED. NBC REPORTER KNEW THIS IN THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE WAR YET THE LIBERAL MEDIA ONLY BREAKS THE STORY NOW> WHAT BULLSHIT AND WITH LIES>

[Edited on 10-26-2004 by xtc]

[Edited on 10-26-2004 by xtc]

[Parkbandit]

:up:

And the Kerry / shoprite line was the best line ever.

:cool::smug:

[Warriorbird]

:snicker: It isn't like Republicans have ever... y'know, funded investigations solely for political reasons... or released last minute news on candidates. Really! It's just Republican-style tactics. Pity the Democrats aren't better at that sort've tripe.

The president does makes VERY few tactical decisions in war time. That is left to the generals and the people on the ground. You forget we went in there looking for WMD's, explosives that are all over the country were not our first concern. Though 380tons or so is quite a bit, they should have just dropped a bomb and watched the pretty fireworks.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
:snicker: It isn't like Republicans have ever... y'know, funded investigations solely for political reasons... or released last minute news on candidates. Really! It's just Republican-style tactics. Pity the Democrats aren't better at that sort've tripe.

Of course I have warned that these tactics have been & will be employed by both sides. It seems the media is giving Karl Rove a run for his money

[Enoxo]

Turns out, this resurfacing of the explosives story was a ploy by CBS as October Surprise.

"News of missing explosives in Iraq -- first reported in April 2003 -- was being resurrected for a 60 MINUTES election eve broadcast designed to knock the Bush administration into a crises mode... "

And it backfired massively on them.

Also, there's one story not being reported that just shows the Kerry Campaign is in a state of panic:

The most unlikely headline of 2004...

Hawaii. Is. In. Play.

Hawaii has always been the bastion of democrats in all previous elections. No one had to go there because it was always a landslide for democrats - 80% to 20%.

However, it is not now. Bush leads Hawaii by 1%, as of the last two poll.

How furious will the Democrats be if a state they had long thought was in the bag ends up costing Kerry the election?

[DeV]

I'm hoping it will go down to the wire. Is any state really secure at this point? Does anyone have a breakdown of what states either candidates are supposed to take or already have in the bag?

[Parkbandit]

Actually.. on the Today show this morning, they discussed Hawaii and how it's moved from a solid Democrat state into a swing state.

I still think Kerry will take that state though.

Bush 52
Kerry 46
Nader 2

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
I'm hoping it will go down to the wire. Is any state really secure at this point? Does anyone have a breakdown of what states either candidates are supposed to take or already have in the bag?

Plenty of states are secure at this point.

Solid Kerry States:

Connecticut (7)
DC (3)
Delaware (3)
Illinois (21)
Maryland (10)
Massachusetts (12)
New York (31)
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)

94 Solid votes

Solid Bush States:

Alabama (9)
Alaska (3)
Georgia (15)
Idaho (4)
Indiana (11)
Kansas (6)
Kentucky (8)
Louisiana (9)
Mississippi (6)
Montana (3)
Nebraska (5)
North Dakota (3)
Oklahoma (7)
South Carolina (8)
South Dakota (3)
Tennessee (11)
Texas (34)
Utah (5)
Wyoming (3)

153 solid votes

There are also states that are considered close states which each candidate should carry:

Kerry Close States:

Maine (4)
Washington (11)
Hawaii (4)
New Jersey (15)
California (55)

89 close votes

Bush close states:

North Carolina (15)
Arizona (10)
Virginia (13)
Colorado (9)

47 close votes

If both candidates carry their close states, we have:

Bush - 200
Kerry - 183

That leaves 155 votes that are essentially up in the air. Candidate needs 270 electorial votes to carry the election. Biggest prizes are: Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20) and Michigan (17).

[Warriorbird]

Some of those secures (either way, mind you) are by 4% or so. That's not secure in my mind. Things could change a lot. I still think Bush will win, but I've cast my vote. It's a miracle that my state is even in question.

[Edited on 10-26-2004 by Warriorbird]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Some of those secures (either way, mind you) are by 4% or so. That's not secure in my mind. Things could change a lot. I still think Bush will win, but I've cast my vote. It's a miracle that my state is even in question.

[Edited on 10-26-2004 by Warriorbird]

It's all based on which polling data you are using. The poll information I was using had solid as more than 10% and close as 5%-9.9% Swing was anything lower than 5%.

By the way.. I heard today that Ohio could be the 2004 Florida.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Solid Kerry States:

Connecticut (7)
:mad:

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Solid Kerry States:

Connecticut (7)
:mad:

Come on.. you had to know Connecticut was solidly a Democratic state.. right? Hell, I spent 2 years there and paid out my ASS in taxes.

[xtc]

Let's hope Cuyahoga county Ohio isn't a retirement community.

[Edited on 10-26-2004 by xtc]

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Solid Kerry States:

Connecticut (7)
:mad:

Come on.. you had to know Connecticut was solidly a Democratic state.. right? Hell, I spent 2 years there and paid out my ASS in taxes.

Taxes suck here. Paying through the nose. However the roads are always paved sans potholes and power hardly, if ever, goes down. I'd rather pay more taxes and see results.

Still voting Republican though. :D

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Taxes suck here. Paying through the nose. However the roads are always paved sans potholes and power hardly, if ever, goes down. I'd rather pay more taxes and see results.

Still voting Republican though. :D

You can get those same results without paying through the ass in taxes.

Personally.. I will take a bump in the road now and then to save $2000 a year anyday.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Taxes suck here. Paying through the nose. However the roads are always paved sans potholes and power hardly, if ever, goes down. I'd rather pay more taxes and see results.

Still voting Republican though. :D

You can get those same results without paying through the ass in taxes.

Personally.. I will take a bump in the road now and then to save $2000 a year anyday.


lol I can PB you have never been to the third world.....lol.....the occaisional bump.

[TheRoseLady]

Bet our Sec of State, Blackwell is furious over the Cuyahoga Co Absentee ballot.

Looks like they hired the same chick that did the butterfly ballot in that one Florida county.

[Carl Spackler]

Hey if you can't read a ballot. You don't deserve to vote. IMO

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Carl Spackler
Hey if you can't read a ballot. You don't deserve to vote. IMO

I can only hope that Ohio Republicans are smarter than Palm Beach Democrats.. otherwise THEY WILL BE DISENFRANCHISED VOTERS!!! and we should count their votes anyway.

[Back]

Nadar is off the ballot in Ohio over fraud.

[Parkbandit]

Someone really should clue John Kerry in on this story and get him the facts. I'm almost embarrassed for him right now.

Sucks that this whole thing backfired on CBS once again. What kind of retards are running that station?

[Carl Spackler]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
What kind of retards are running that station?


Liberals.... I mean wait did I just say that???? (not to infer liberals are retarded, this was a joke)

[Back]

Photo, video show Iraqi complex before, after invasion (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/28/iraq.explosives/index.html)

Of course, all this actual timestamped footage and witness testimony is going to get met with rationalizations and finger pointing.

[DeV]

That story adds a little more fuel to the fire.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash's article
because it would have been difficult to move that much material in a war zone crawling with U.S. troops without detection
Originally posted by Latrinsorm, 4 days ago
380 tons is an awful lot to move around without us not noticing.:)

I don't get why it matters whether they were moved before, during, or after the invasion. The bad guys still have them.

edit: I get why it would matter if they were moved, like, a year and half later.

[Edited on 10-29-2004 by Latrinsorm]

[Back]

Yah, and the thread dies... backfired who?

[Ravenstorm]

I'm just waiting to see what more develops. It seems rather silly to keep going back and forth with the "Ah ha! Now who's wrong?!" every three hours when something new comes out.

Though the video from that imbedded cameraman showing the explosives there after the invasion is pretty conclusive. So far, at least.

Raven

[Hulkein]

One thing we can all agree on is the Bin Laden tape is going to hog the headlines for the weekend, putting this thing on the back shelf.

[Back]

Shiny object!