#16: 380 Tons of Questions

THREAD BEGAN: October 28th, 2004
A fresh topic?...Maybe not just yet...

BOB: I think we have exhausted the numbers 90 and 380.
NEW QUESTION: And I would like all the REPs to answer this: Kerry has been criticized for being too liberal. Listen to Cheney’s recent comments:
"John Kerry is, by National Journal ratings, the most liberal member of the United States Senate. Ted Kennedy is the more conservative of the two senators from Massachusetts. It's true. All you got to do is go look at the ratings systems. And that captures a lot, I think, in terms of somebody's philosophy. And it's not based on one vote, or one year, it's based on 20 years of service in the United States Senate."
The same administration is criticizing Kerry for being a life-long flip-flopper. So which is he?...Too consistently liberal or too inconsistent? I'd like each REP to please choose one.

ABRAMOVICH: In Kerry's senior yearbook at Yale he is listed as a "Young Republican."At least we know his stance remains consistant - its always changing.Quite ironic.....

CHUCK: In Bush's college career he was a cocaine abuser, alcholic, and when sober.......a fucking cheerleader!
Jay, save your effort. I apologize for responding. I really have been regretting responding to your email. I am done replying. All you do is ask questions and criticize, and then when I give detailed responses/answers you never respond to my comments, you just criticize and ask more similar questions. its a joke. as far as this story, its not that important to our decisions, so i'm done w/ it. after reading through those articles, many of my sources arent on point, but they are reporting the story. and i admittedly heard on NPR that "12 major outlets confirm the NYT report"....so i cannot find there direct stuff, but i swear in all honesty that's what I heard in a NPR report......but whatever, maybe its wrong. but i dont care what you think. your analysis always boils down to "left-wing sources" and hearing what you want. i am sick of acting defensive, and feeling some obligation to respond to your questions, and then just have you never do anything but ask more questions, while never acknowledging any points i make.
i guess i can take solace in the fact that when i am right about something, you never respond to my comments......i guess i should just take a deep breath, and remind myself that you usually dont respond to my actual analysis.
good times for all. 6 more days of failure. 6 more days of desperation. 6 more days.

ABRAMOVICH: Chuck, Using the great technology of this century by increasing font size, color and bolding your words arent going to get your point across any better. Kerry will win Ohio - but he will lose the election. He will probably win the popular vote too.
why the hell do you liberals (other Bob) keep showing statistics of what european, muslims etc think of bush? This is irrelevent. I could spend a few minutes on the internet and find some similar stupid numbers that favor Bush. Actually all I have to do is go to the swift boat site and find people who served with John Kerry who speak of his lies and betrayals.
Sounds like they are playing both sides of the fence again.If we wouldnt have gone into Iraq they would still have all the weapons. Take your pick - all 500,000 tons or 380 tons missing I would go for the 380.....
[Bush] sounds like the average american - except for the cheerleading part. Chuck - if i remember correctly i remember you driving home from the bar one night so drunk that when you arrived at the house and opened your door you feel face first into the driveway.... I guess its what you would call going "face down."

SAMMY: Although, Chuck was not snorting coke, but Chuck could be considered the average american. Also The Bush family is not your average american family. Also Chuck never has been at the white House or camp david, and never smoked weed their. So that is just a display of disrespect for the presidents home and vacation spot.

CHUCK: Here is a perfect analysis, which leaves both sides arguments. (CNN). I'll take the side of the Iraqi government, and I would expect all you conservatives to side w/ the Iraqi interim government (which you all love so much, and would never want to question them). Also, interestingly enough, if you want to believe the pentagon-version.....they even admit that there was a 6 week window to steal the munitions.
It was reported Monday that the interim Iraqi government earlier this month told the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog organization, that 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives were missing from a storage facility south of Baghdad.
In a letter dated October 10, the interim government blamed "the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security" during the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
The Pentagon has said that the explosives were probably removed from the depot before the war started on March 19, 2003, but also acknowledges there was a window of about six weeks when it was possible for the stockpile to have been stolen. What a joke.
Ben, This is the exact opposite of your claim that the military said it was moved 18 moths ago. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said this morning:
Question from a reporter: Do you say that the regime, that the Saddam Hussein regime was still capable of moving tons of explosives around the country after the U.S. invaded?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not saying that. I'm saying -- military leaders have said that. Our military leaders have said that. I think that's a fact. This was a regime that operated in that fashion. They had munitions -- munition caches all across the country. They moved munitions around.
That shows the military thinks the weapons were there after we invaded. This story could bring Bush down because they are choosing not to answer the questions directly.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041027-3.html

ABRAMOVICH: The question is not if we are safer with no idea where the 380 tons are, but if we are safer knowing that some 450,000 have been destroyed or are secured. Thats the question. I think the answer is pretty obvious....

JAY: chuck, read the blog. i gave a detailed response to Kyle's attack on bush concerning the missing weapons. you jumped in stating you have 12 sources, now it's "i heard 12 on npr." you attacked me first. your detailed response was "bush was negligent" and something about me. a gave a timeline of facts that you haven't even contested. so take is as you will. i guess your "bush was negligent" e-mail was more factua and detailedl than my list of facts. whatever, it's irrelevant anyway

DAN: [Bush’s college career] Sounds like good times to me!!!
Face Down is what Chuck does the entire next day after completing the following....getting drunk, leaving It's Brothers, getting Hound Dog's white pizza (or White Castle, or both), and then waking up in the morning, "double-stacking" it (Wendy's Doublestack for those who don't know) along with a Biggie Diet....then FACE DOWN!!!
GET 'ER GOIN'!!!!!!

CHUCK: holy shit, jay didnt demand more answers to stupid questions!
jay, sorry for the dickhead comment, but i am just sick of this all. i thought about it, and just know i'm being an ass.....sorry, if you cared.
there are 12 major media outlets running a story that backs up the Iraqi Government, and 1 (NBC) that doesnt.....regardless of me having all links.....NPR is credible, and I think my ears are, too.
Additionally, you did it again! Congratulations........I cite a terrific anaylsis from CNN which explains that the IRAQI GOVERNMENT believes its the US fault.......and then you ignore the comment......you refuse to endorse the IRAQI GOVERNMENT's version of the stockpiles (yeah, the same iraqi's you constantly praise and ALWAYS HAVE SAID these Iraqi's fighting for their country are so great.....unless you dont like what the said, i guess.....then you think they are idiots. (or maybe its one of those situations where I am on to a valid point.....so you just don't respond....and make some quick jab about my source being NPR)

JAY: Chuck, i forgot to add that we have lost my point in this so-called debate. My point was that I thought it was shady that CBS was going to hold the story until Oct. 31. It appears they wanted to influence the election. If that was Fox against the democrats you know you would be throwing a shit storm (you guys were bitching on whether Fox broke Florida first; i think this is more unethical). Second, I think it is extremely irresponsible for Kerry to start pointing the finger at Bush before he has learned all the facts. The fact is no one is sure when they were taken. I don't think anyone should be using it for political gain until the story is substantiated. It's similar to Rather. How do you people feel on this? Is anyone going to see Fahrenhype 911 or are you too closed minded (I saw Mooore's flick; nobody respoded to that, why?). For god sakes, read what the NYT article states within its text.
NYT: The accounts do not directly address the question of when 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives vanished from the site sometime after early March, the last time international inspectors checked the seals on the bunkers where the material was stored. It is possible that Iraqi forces removed some explosives before the invasion.
MSNBC: "U.S. commander says it’s unlikely it occurred after 2003 U.S. invasion" "Disappearance remains a mystery"
CNN: "The Pentagon has said that the explosives were probably removed from the depot before the war started on March 19, 2003, but also acknowledges there was a window of about six weeks when it was possible for the stockpile to have been stolen."

KYLE: One thing that makes this really interesting is that both sides of this weapons debate have been able to get information via the internet in real time ahead of the major news broadcasts. I think this story is a perfect example of the speed with which information travels these days and the fact that average stiffs like us have access to the same information reporters have. While neither side has all the facts, we have a lot of facts and for the most part both sides are getting a lot right. Nice work to all.
Bush made a terrible decision not to comment on this story right away... just like Kerry on Swift Boats.

BOB: Well I stand corrected...we haven’t had enough talk about the 380 figure...Everyone is arguing about timelines and digging for contradictory quotes. It’s funny cause the same quotes are being used by both Jay and Chuck to support their argument:
CNN: "The Pentagon has said that the explosives were probably removed from the depot before the war started on March 19, 2003, but also acknowledges there was a window of about six weeks when it was possible for the stockpile to have been stolen."
[Jay highlights: "The Pentagon has said that the explosives were probably removed from the depot before the war started on March 19, 2003..." Chuck highlights: "...there was a window of about six weeks when it was possible for the stockpile to have been stolen."]
The truth is that it doesn’t matter when they disappeared. The same way that it didn’t matter if those Swift Boat adds were telling the truth. The damage is done.
I watched Larry King Live last night and a show after that called INSIGHT (on CNN International). Two straight hours of REPs and DEMs debating this subject. In those two hours I heard two basic rebuttals from the Right:
-----Don’t jump to conclusions.
-----The timing of this story is awfully suspicious.
Maybe this works for Abramovich, but it won’t work with the undecided voters. These people are not spending hours on the internet like us, researching this. They see a few very negative headlines (true or not) followed by a late response from the administration which doesn’t resolve any doubts. Bottom line: This will hurt Bush, badly.
PS Jay, I would love to watch that anti-Moore movie and checkout the claims. It is really hard for me to get that here, but I will ask my students to try to download it and burn it for me. But just for the record, I really do want to see it and discuss it.

JAY: kyle, you have illustrated my point. you said, "neither side has all the facts." that's what is pissing me off about kerry. he's running w/ this story as if he has all the facts. a majority of the people aren't like us who have the internet and research this stuff (yes, we're all anal about this shit). they believe it is all bush's fault b/c kerry has been stating it repeatedly on his campaign trail. i think it'w wrong for a candidate to use an allegation w/out the necessary facts to influence voters. once we find out the truth, then use it at will. anybody differ?

CHUCK: Kerry is TALKING w/out all the facts. Bush went to WAR w/out all the facts. BUT YOU ARE NOT PISSED OFF AT BUSH. What a joke.

JAY: bob, you state, "It’s funny cause the same quotes are being used by both Jay and Chuck to support their argument." That was my point. all the articles were inconclusive on who's fault it was (they were unsure what happened). There isn't enough to draw the conclusion that it is all bush's fault. We don't know what happened. My main point was chuck and Kerry were too quick to jump to conclusions w/out all the facts and used these misrepresentations for political gain.
chuck, there is a huge difference. bush thought he had all the information he needed. the fact is is that our intelligence was wrong. if i'm not mistaken kerry looked at the same intelligence and voted for the war as well. in this case, kerry's own campaign heads admit they didn't have all the info but didn't stop kerry from rolling w/ it. i hope it doesn't bite him in the ass. what do you think about the head of cbs wanting to hold it until 31st? if that was fox would you complain?

CHUCK: Jay, YOU ARE RIGHT! There is a HUGE difference. Kerry is making a political talking point, in a campaign. BUSH STARTED A WAR!

JAY: chuck, are you missing my point on purpose? kerry would have started a war as well after looking at the same intelligence. he voted for it. maybe he would have waited longer, but he still would have gone to war. am i right? in this case the head of kerry's campaign didn't have all the info. from cnn, "Holbrooke said I don't know what happened. I do know one thing -- in most administrations the buck stops in the Oval Office." judge for yourselves. i think it's wrong

CHUCK: apologize for filling everyones email w/ this same stuff.
1. kerry would have been more patient w/ iraq and the UN inspectors
2. then time would have unfolded what we now know....iraq was not an imminent threat.
3. therefore, kerry would not have gone to war
SO QUIT SAYING KERRY WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING

JAY: let me get this straight. you are now saying that iraq was not an imminent threat? is that what kerry has been saying? this is crazy. will a democrat please tell chuck that kerry thought saddam posed an imminent threat.

CHUCK: Jay is officially lying or an idiot.
Kerry has said Iraq/sadaam was a threat. But the fact that there was no WMD's has made it clear to everyone sane that Iraq/sadaam was not an imminent threat.
There is a huge diference. Stop lying or being an idiot, seriously.
Will someone yell at jay, so i dont look too crazy. This is insane.....in the mold of Bush's distortion jay now says "Threat" and "Imminent Threat" are same thing.
Me getting into a car accident is a "Threat" because i drive in a dangerous world. Me getting into a car accident is NOT an "Imminent Threat" because I am cautious driver. See the difference? (and that is a kinda dumb example, too)

BOB: Break it up! Break it up!
Jay, I think you have a valid point:
---Kerry supported the war (which kills me) and agreed with Bush that Saddam was a threat.
---We don’t have all the facts about the missing weapons
---Kerry is running with a story without all the facts
So let’s look at the facts we do know:
---Before the invasion there were 380 tons of explosives there.
---The administration knew this.
---We failed to stop mass looting of government facilities during the invasion.
---Now they are gone.
---The administration doesn’t know what happened.
So you are correct in saying that we don’t know all the facts. But I think we know the important ones:
---This facility wasn’t secured or monitored sufficiently.
---Now 380 tons of explosives are in the hands of the enemy.
I think this is a completely valid criticism.

BEN: again, no it is not a fact that 380 tons are missing. bob stop claiming this is a certainty. it isnt. check out ABC News website today - they are saying it could be as low as around 140. that just shows the facts are far from certian in this case on both sides the only thing that is certain is that kerry pikced up and ran with a story not knowing if it was true. it may be. it may not be.
you can believe kerry-cbs-NYT or Bush-Pentagon-Troops

KYLE: The only other thing that is certain is that we can expect a resistance to investigation from the administration like they did with the 9/11 commission. These guys aren't too big on accountability.
Condi Rice was told about it October 10th. It only makes sense that it would take a couple weeks to leak and of course the administation wants to sit on another illustration of their incompetence. CBS was likely keeping the story because they need to revive the respect of theirs news department after their recent disgrace. The campaign is still off message for another day and that is bad for you Bushies.

JAY: you guys decide who's the liar or the idiot. in the presidential debate kerry stated, "I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way. Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But we didn't need to rush to war without a plan to win the peace. It was a threat. That's not the issue."
This was said at the debate in sept. of 04. Not in 2002. So what he was saying is that he was still a threat. Right? the web site is http://hundredpercenter.blogspot.com/2004/09/president-bush-debates-senator-kerry.html
Chuck, you can play w/ imminence all you want, but this is what kerry said. I concede that he wanted to do it a different way, but to say he would have realized there was no threat is just STUPID. Read kerry’s own words. Yes, i understand the difference between an imminent threat and threat. If you want o start attacking intelligence, beware.

ABRAMOVICH: After the attacks of September 11th, President Bush articulated the primary lesson, that simply reacting to danger after lives are lost is a weak and unacceptable national defense. He believes that taking the fight to the enemy is the best way to ensure that the enemy will not bring death to our doorstep here at home.Under the Presidents strong leadership in the war on terror and through the heroic efforts of our military forces, we are a safer country today. Although Osama Bin Laden has not been caught two-thirds of al Qaeda leadership is dead, incarcerated, or on the run, its financing disrupted. The Taliban has been removed from power and training camps in Afghanistan and Iraq have been eliminated. On the domestic front, our dedicated law enforcement agencies are finally able to fight terror the same way they go after drug cartels; terrorists and terrorist cells have been thwarted in upstate New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Illinois and Florida.
The 9/11 Commission has provided this nation with a solid blueprint for going forward in the war on terror. It described the threat that killed our loved ones as a gathering storm which went unrecognized and unchecked for too many years and characterized the inability to predict the attack itself as a failure of imagination. Looking forward, the Commission offered this pointed warning, Once the danger has fully materialized, evident to all, mobilizing action is easier--but it then may be too late.
Through the prism of 9/11 and presaging the Commissions conclusion, President Bush looked at Iraq and Saddam Husseins history, his willingness to use chemical weapons in the mass murder of his own citizens, his notorious attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, his record of giving financial aid and sanctuary to global terrorists--including members of al Qaeda--and his repeated refusal to cooperate with U.N. inspectors. He determined that this repressive regime was an intolerable danger to our country. Rather than waiting until it was too late to prevent a fully materialized threat, the President acted. History will support the Presidents decision.

DAN: A quick answer to a stupid question...He is the known as "The most liberal person in the Senate." This is said by all parties alike. No disputing this fact. BUT, he is playing both sides (during this election), making him inconsistant with his issues. He is for what ever is popular at the moment, in hopes that this will result in votes. After all is said and done, he will go back to being his same old liberal self, Far Left. I think Bob A. said it perfectly, the only thing Kerry is consistant with, is that he is consistantly inconsistant.

ABRAMOVICH: BUSH declared war on Iraq to prevent any future attacks on the US as well as other countries by a man who had the power, weapons, and technology to do so. Chuck, how long do we have to wait before we can go into a country like this? Should we have to wait for 5 years of non-compliance with the UN or should we wait until we are attacked by them? To me (and Viscione) that is called being a pussy and being reactive. We must be proactive to win the war on terror. Kerry voted to go to war. So he must have felt the same way - he just didnt want any of the soldiers to have body armor or ammuntion, but thats a whole nother story
you are all crazy. Anyone who thinks we should not have gone into Iraq is crazy. How long, how long do we have to wait for this madman to turnover his weapons? We gave him a reasonable date and he didnt comply - so we acted with force. What more do you need?
380 tons of explosives are missing. Who's fault is it? Certainly not George Bush's fault. He was not the one guarding the building. He was not on the ground in Iraq. I would blame someone in the military. However you can say it did happen on his watch, but it is not his fault. Someone in the military who doesnt mind losing their job should stand up and take the blame (if they went missing during the war - which we dont even know)

CHUCK: BOB! Jay is claiming Kerry believes Iraq was an imminent threat. BOB!?I need help, because that is either a lie or stupidity, and jay should be called. but jay is completely trying to distort the truth.....just like W. or is jay so poorly versed in the english language (just like W), that he does not understand the difference b/w "threat" and "imminent threat"
in regards to the kerry comments on the facilities: Jay makes a fine point. and who cares? kerry is make some conclusions based on not all the facts.....good for him. There is no way we will know for sure, probably ever, and definitely not in the next 5 days.....but there is still evidence that this happened under our watch, and kerry should bring it up. he is learning how toi fight dirty, against the dirtiest, filthiest campaign animals....the republicans (see: karl rove, tom delay, bush v. mccain, swift boaters, willie horton, 2000 florida, 2004 ohio where they sued because homeless tried to vote) plus, its not like kerry is lying, he is just rushing to judgment. sound familiar Bush lovers?
JAY, Comment on the heroic Iraqi Provisional Authority blaming us. How could this be?
BEN, nice distortion of reality by turning this into a "believe the troops issue." well, i cant believe the troops, because only republicans (especially ones that have never served their country) can support the troops.

JAY: first sammy, i think they have equally played dirty. you must have missed my e-mail that's on the blog stating how it sucks that people buy these misrepresentations. second, you (and chuck) state that it still would have been bush's fault even if the weapons were gone prior to the war. i don't understand that type of thinking. so, while we were waiting for the weapons inspectors, while all of your were whining about how we should wait as long as it takes, we should have gone in there and gaurded al qaqaa (whatever that facility is called). i thought you guys didn't want us in there at all? what made it our responsibility and not the u.n.'s to secure these weapons prior to the war and how would we have done it?
then you state jokingly that bush is responsible for all the worlds problems. well, i seriously think that the world is screwed up b/c people are too passive and will only act when it's too late. maybe if the liberals didn't protest in the late 1930's we would have joined the war earlier and stopped hitler from murdering millions of jews. maybe if we didn't wait for all the failed resolutions in iraq we could have prevented the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. this would also include the people who were murdered by suicide bombers whom were paid w/ hefty sums of money from saddam (do you consider that sponsoring terrorism; one of the reasons bush initially gave to go to war).
it's always wait, wait, wait until things get a little worse then we'll act. we need to rid the world of dictators who torture it's citizens, deprive it's ctizens of fundamental rights, and flat out execute those that oppose their ideas. yeah, it would be ideal if we could simply go over to saddams house and ask him nicely to stop being so bad over a red bull and vodka, but that's not how the world works guys. some peole just don't listen. look at how many resolutions we already implemented. liberals should be the first to understand liberation. they constantly enjoy their fundamental right to bitch,complain, and protest about how the government handles our business. as much as i disagree w/ your bitching, you should always retain that right. that's part of freedom. yes, bitching is a fundamental right

BOB: CHUCK, Stop calling Jay an idiot or a liar. You're ranting! I get your point about the distinction between 'imminent threat' and 'threat.' Fine point...but you're beating a dead horse my friend. Furthermore, I don't think it is appropriate to call someone an idiot in this forum (unless you're talking about Abramovich, of course)
BEN,Thanks for the clarrification! I shouldn't have said that 380 tons of explosives were missing. Instead, I should have said that AT LEAST 140 tons of explosives are missing. How about this Ben: A huge, fucking amount of explosives are missing. Can we agree on that?
DAN, About Kerry being the most liberal Senator. Don't be so sure. Checkout this site and get back to me...www.mostliberalsenator.blogspot.com
JAY: I think you have a respectable point of view about the need for the U.S. to be proactive in the War on Terror. Fine. The problem is that Bush lied (or delivered bad intelligence in good faith) about Iraq's role in that War on Terror. Now our forces are distracted and bogged down in a country that had no involvement in Sept 11th. One other thing...please stop comparing Saddam to Hitler...it's ridiculous.
ABRAMOVICH: Think. Just calm down and think before you regurgitate Bush's talking points. You say:
#1: 2/3 of al-Qaeda have been brought to justice...Where did that number come from? Is this only counting the cells that we knew about at the time of Sept. 11th? Is this including all the new recruits and cells that have sprung up? How do you measure an enemy that is in hiding?
#2: The 9/11 commission has provided a great blueprint...Bush fought against this wonderful commission. Remember?
#3: Saddam attempted to acquire nuclear weapons...Where are you getting that? Wasn't the nuclear weapons portion of Powells UN speech proven to be wrong?
#4: Saddam gave financial aid and sanctuary to members of al Qaeda...This is my favorite. You sound like Cheney. Where did you get this? (Don't say Cheney) The 9-11 commission found no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda!
Then you say:[Bush] declared war on Iraq to prevent any future attacks...by a man who had the power, weapons, and technology to do so. What power? What weapons? What technology?
Finally, I love how nothing is Bush's fault. The prison scandal, the missing explosives, the faulty CIA intelligence. Nothing. You are truly delusional.

KYLE: Bob A,Partisanship aside, I think you are really onto something with your excellent point about the missing weapons being the troops fault. I think in these closing days before the election that you, as a staunch Republican and adamant supporter of our President, need to get this great idea out there. Share your insight. Remember you are not alone in your idea here. Rudy Giuliani agrees. That is some pretty good company!
I know you (and I) would hate for people to cast those votes on November 2nd without knowing that Republicans believe we need better troops in the field if we are going to prevent all these mistakes in Iraq.

JAY: bob, when i get back from class expect a long response to the ridiculous comparison of hitler and saddam. it may exceed the 500 word limt which means you won't have to post it, but i hope you do.

CHUCK: I am ranting, because you were letting Jay blur reality by claiming kerry believed iraq was an imminent threat. I did say jay is either an idiot OR lying. It was a rhetorical question. Jay is not an idiot, so he was obviously lying. I was not calling jay an idiot. I think jay is well informed, and we would live in a better world, if everyone knew as much as him.
Lying? Well, first things first, Jay said: "this is crazy. will a democrat please tell chuck that kerry thought saddam posed an imminent threat"I went on to very appropriately (and aggressively) explain what jay was doing.....intentionally blurring reality, which is what i called lying. And Jay was trying blend threat and imminent threat (just like bush blurs 9/11 and iraq).
Jays comments were false. I called him on it. I assumed someone would take my side, but no one did.
So then i got mad. I am not going to apologize for that. Me using words like "idiot or liar" is shitty use of the discussion we have here, no doubt. And Jay trying to trick everyone on how Kerry perceived iraq's threat is an equally shitty use of the discussion we have here, in my opinion. I find it disgusting that 50% of Americans think Sadaam was part of 9/11. I find it disgusting that 50% of BUSH SUPPORTERS think we FOUND WMD in Iraq. And how has this happened? The same bullshit tactics that Jay used on making "imminent threat" and "threat" the same. There is a reason Kerry is not up by 10%. Its this type of nonsense. Nationally, Bush has preyed on the vulnerable by distorting words and facts to convince the Bob Abramovich's of the world. On our Blog, Jay is trying to do the same thing....and it pisses me off.
There are valid arguments on both sides. There are important differences. Those differences should be explained and defended.....not blurred in a manner that stiffles our discussion.

BOB: Jay, Looking forward to your comparison of the threat that Hitler posed the world in the late 1930’s and the threat Saddam posed the world in 2004. Should be entertaining. Jay, you have been making more sensible observations lately…but this is not one of them.
PS. 500 words should be plenty

#15: Electorial College Preview

THREAD BEGAN: October 27th, 2004

BEN: After a good day of bitter back and forth, i felt i should offer up some unsolicited non-partisan things of where things stand state by state. i am trying to avoid writing a paper for school and fill the void of no keeler report until sunday. i have been looking at this shit really about 45 min of every 1 hr i am up now, so here goes
Lets Assume that we start at 274-264 Bush, keeping every 2000 state the same, except giving Kerry New Hampshire which he will likely win. - There are really only 4 genuine toss ups now - Ohio, New Mexico, Wisconisn and Iowa
"The Big 3"
Ohio (20), Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21). Kerry seems to have solidfied things in PA despite Bush and Karl Rove's obsession with it. He needs this state - there is really no way he will win if he loses it. Kerry will win PA. Same goes for Bush in Florida - he has to have it. He will win Florida I believe - Kerry can not pull out of the state for obvious reasons, but Bush seems to have regained control there. Ohio is obviously the wild card here. Right now, it really is a coin flip and seems to change daily. If Bush wins the state, he will be re-elected. If Kerry wins it, that is where things get dicey. If you put a gun to my head and i had to pick the winner in OH, I would say Bush, but I would say there is a 49.99999999999999% chance I would then end up dead on Nov 3.
"The Trifecta"
Minnesota (10), Iowa (7), Wisconsin (10). These are all states won by Gore in 00 - Iowa and Wisconsin barely, and MN by about 2.4% I beleive. Bush is trending very will in Iowa and Wisconsin, and he seems to be surging in Iowa. Wisconsin has closed, but there is slight edge to Bush still. Minnesota - who knows. Every Republican there swears they are going to win the state, but I am not sold on it. If Bush does indeed lose Ohio, he can offset it by winning two of these three. I think he will win one of them - but winning two might be a tall order. Also, MN and WI have up to day of vote voter registration - that will benefit the dems
The Other One
New Mexico (5) - This is also a state that would seem to be headed to Bush, but I also believe it is a coin toss at this time, 50.00001% chance for Kerry. NM is a tough state to poll with all of the poor Hispanics - alot of the polls showing Bush up there have not been polling in Spanish, which hurts Kerry's numbers. (this is also a reason to trust Mason-Dixon in FL - they do poll in Spanish for those who need it - while most others dont in Florida)
There are rumblings still about Republicans winning Oregon, Michigan or New Hampshire as Democrats still think they can win in West Virginia, Arkansas or Nevada. All of these seem unlikely, but if one of them happened I wouldnt be stunned. The DemocrRATs (a little 2000 campaign humor for you) are better positoned for a surpirse from these states
I doubt anyone read this far, but if so, thanks, almost done........SO
IF BUSH WINS OHIO AND FLORIDA - ITS OVER
IF KERRY WINS OHIO AND FLORIDA - ITS OVER
(really of Bush loses FL regardless of OH he is done)
IF BUSH WINS FLORIDA BUT LOSES OHIO - and this scenario is looking more likely every day
he needs 15 votes from: Minnesota (10) New Mexico (5) Iowa (7) Wisconsin (10)
IF KERRY LOSES OHIO AND FLORIDA, WELL HE IS ALMOST DONE....
unless he can somehow take 6 votes from: (assuming he wins NH) Nevada (5) Arkansas (6) West Virginia (5)
some gay state will probably fuck up my whole calculations.....but what i have put here seems to be the concensus.....it is very very close, but Bush has a slightly easier road to 269 for him, 270 for Kerry if things stay as they are now in the national polls, but this could change tomorrow
-the poll master

#14: The 90% Figure? > The 380 Figure?

THREAD BEGAN: October 25th, 2004

BOB: Mr. abrAmovich, Your last email was thoroughly entertaining... I pointed out that 90% of Coalition casualties have been ours. Then you said: “The 90% figure does not take into account Iraqi fighters. Do they not count? John Kerry doesnt seem to think so.” John Kerry is right. They DO NOT count! Here is the list of Coalition Nations as listed by the WhiteHouse @ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030320-11.html
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan
Notice anything? Iraq isn’t on the list. Now why would the White House leave Iraq off the list? Maybe they forgot! Or maybe even they knew that including Iraq (the country that was being invaded) as a member of the Coalition (doing the invading) was too ridiculous even for this administration to sell.
The bottom line is this:
---The Coalition of the Willing is a 49 nation joke.
---The U.S. HAS taken 90% of the casualities and born 90% of the costs.
---Bush and Cheney can’t dispute this, so they are desperately trying to make Kerry look ‘ungreatful.’
---And you bought it!
Congradulations, you're a sucker.
PS Also, I never said that, "if John Kerry became president all of this countries are just going to jump into this war" Of course that won't happen. Bush has burned too many bridges. But maybe Kerry can stop the Coalition from collapsing completely and muster a few other countries to reconsider.
When you listed your 7 reasons why you will vote for Bush, you said in your first reason that you prefer Bush, seeing how Kerry won’t be able to get more international support (because of his “wrong war / wrong time" type comments.) Now you are flatly admitting that: “Neither will get anymore support.” Make up your mind man.

ABRAMOVICH: George Bush is not afraid to stand up and let people know where he stands. On the other hand the other canidates prefer to play both sides and make promises they wont be able to keep. I am confident that I know where my canidate stands.We may take the burden of 90% of the casualties and 90% of the costs (anyone can modify statistics) but it is the outcome of this war that outweights the losses incurred during it. We are liberating people who once would have thier hands cut off because they did not perform well in the Olympics. Put yourself in one of those Olympic athletes shoes and just imagine how greatful you would feel if you knew that you could participate in the Olympics without the fear of this type of torture. And that is just one incident. We have found mass graves etc all under the rule of Sadaam Hussein. These people were tourtured by their own leader for no reason. How can any sick person in this world claim that this is the wrong war. Just be happy you werent born and raised in Iraq, cause you might be dead or missing some limbs by now.
Can one of you Kerry lovers tell me what the hell Kerrys plan to win the war on terrorism is?I still dont know and I have only asked three times. I am not sure any of you know. In fact, I am not sure Kerry even knows.... If it is bringing all of these countries together for a Summit you can forget it.You know the sad part is that Bush isnt doing a fantastic job and he is still in the race for reelection. Its pretty said that Kerry is the best democrat you have to go against Bush. If the dems had a slightly decent canidate he would be blowing Bush away. Regardless of who wins the election, the winner of the 2008 election will be John Kasich (Republican - Ohio). I'd rather live in Canada and have to use that stupid money than live here under John Kerry.
The entire country of Iraq was a weapons stockpile. So far, 243,000 tons of weapons and explosives have been secured and destroyed. In addition, 163,000 tons of weapons and explosives have been secured and are awaiting destruction. All the Monday morning-quarterbacking and armchair-generaling in the world by John Kerry won't make up for the fact that he does not have a vision, a strategy or a plan to fight and win the War on Terror. Saddam Hussein's government stored weapons in mosques, schools, hospitals and countless other locations throughout Iraq. Yet, John Kerry showed today that he still cannot decide whether Saddam Hussein was a threat or not. He claims the weapons our troops have secured and destroyed were not a threat, but any other weapons were.
Wrong War - Wrong Time

JAY: Bob, in your response to your "you're a sucker" statement to the other Bob. These kind of statements are exactly what hurts Kerry's position in Iraq. If you want to argue this technicality (whether Iraq is considered part of the coalition) then you are going to waste everyone's time. So for arguments sake, lets say Iraq isn't considered part of the coalition. This would mean that the U.S. would account for about 50% of the total casualties fighting to liberate Iraq (under yours and others' theory, the u.s. accounts for 90% of the "coalition"; i guess i'll agree, but disregarding the Iraqi people is a mistake). So, the actual "bottom line" is that the U.S. accounts for 50% of the casualties that are fighting to liberate Iraq, but 90% of your so called "coalition." Disregarding ("not counting") the Iraqi people won't win the hearts of those same Iraqi people if Kerry is our new president.
Do you know that the most recent polls taken of the U.S. military reveal that Bush is a three to one favorite? Why do you think that most of the people actually fighting the war are for Bush?
Kerry's ideal plan with foreign policy is meeting the Global test. However, when the global test was met in the 1991 Gulf war (soomeone please challenge that if you can; good luck) Kerry voted against it. He was pushing sanctions back then as well. This illustrates his numerous contradictions on the war in Iraq. He says he wants this "global test", but when it's actually met he'll still sit idle (what he says he'll do and what he has actually done are completely opposite). Can someone explain why Kerry voted against the gulf war?
Also, I still don't fully understand Kerry's argument for voting against the 87 billion in equipment when he preaches that he wants to provide the troops w/ everything necessary.I might seem stubborn to most of you, but I see too many unanswered contradictions. I like Kerry's stance on many other issues, but the war in iraq trumps all (but that's my book).

BOB: REPs, if you want to argue:
…that Kerry’s voting record sucks...
…that Bush's War on Terror is making us safer…
…that the DEMs are a bunch of whiners…
…that Bush is better for America…Fine.
These are debatable…matters of opinion. But please, for the love of God, stop arguing that the U.S. hasn’t taken 90% of the Coalition casualties in Iraq. No one is “modifying statistics” or talking about “technicalities” and it isn’t MY “so-called coalition”. This is as undeniable a fact as the world being round: 49 countries joined on to liberate Iraq. Of those 49 Countries there have been 1,248 coalition deaths, 1,109 Americans (that’s 89%)
Why is this SO important?...Because it demonstrates Bush’s failure to assemble tangible international support for the mission and exposes the fact that he exaggerated the commitment and scope of the Coalition. Period.
PS Jay/Abramovich, I will address your valid concerns about Kerry when I have more time. They are good questions that need to be answered.

JAY: one more question (i still expect responses to my others, not just from bob). what status do you give the iraqi army and police? i'm assuming you don't consider them part of the opposition considering they are being trained by us and fighting alng side of us. where do their casualty statistics fall then? do we give them their own category for politics sake? i understand leaving them out gives Kerry more ammo. is it a good thing to keep merely disregarding the deaths of those iraqis who are fighting along side with the coalition. if they are fighting w/ the coalition to liberate iraq how do you distinguish them from coalition help? don't let this little question ache your head too much

CHUCK: I'm fed up. Anyone that thinks Bush keeps them safer, is an idiot. Bush's execution of the war in Iraq has put us all in greater danger.
This failure of a human being has allowed 380 TONS of EXPLOSIVES. 380 TONS. This is outrageous. That really scares me, and I am being very genuine in my fear. This really is a joke. But guess what has been protected? THE OIL
There really is no justification to think Kerry could do any worse. Some silly votes (maybe even a flip-flop or 2) and some suggested cuts in defense (same as cheney).......DO NOT EQUAL allowing people that hate us to get 380 TONS of EXPLOSIVES.....or sending our country to war w/out enough troops.....or sending our troops into battle w/out a plan to win the peace QUIT FUCKING ACTING LIKE THERE IS A VALID COMPARISON. You may not like Kerry, and surely dont have to vote for him, but QUIT WASTING YOUR LIFE acting like this guy is making us safer.......this is a FUCKING JOKE. kerry may have a bad record (i disagree) but there is no way to say Bush has made us safer of the last 4 years. Bush may of had some good ideas (if you agree w/ iraq....i disagree) BUT he has completely FUCKED EVERYTHING UP.
(by the way, i dont think bush is evil because of the oil protection....i think it's another sign of his failure, because he has let people close to him manipulate him, which allows others, close to Bush, to engage in war-profiteering)

BEN: I wasnt going to respond anymore before the election, but…This story is just false. The 380 tons were gone before US Troops arrived. This story is also being recycled for the last week of the campaign. It is not new. This is just a last gasp effort to bring down the President and I am not going to let this one pass through and not respond. 380 tons is a lot - but it is not alot in compariosn to what has been desroyed....also why would saddam have these explosives. should we have gone in sooner and gotten them - and not dicked around for 14 months in the UN?? believe it if you must, but it isnt true

CHUCK: ITS NOT FALSE. There is some dispute over the exact time.
Here is some analysis: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1026/dailyUpdate.html
Here are all the stories: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1026/dailyUpdate.html
BUSH IS A FAILURE. ANYONE THAT DOESNT SEE IT IS AN IDIOT. i still like everyone personally, and respect different views (more than others) but I have just snapped....i kept my composure for a long time, but i cant take it anymore.....BUSH IS NOT MAKING US SAFER.....and there is no reason to think Kerry would do worse....you cannot do worse then THE WORST

JAY: chuck, i know you got my last e-mails. why havent you or anyone else on the liberal side responded to my legitimate questions. there is no way to BS around those. you state that we aren't much safer b/c 380 tons of explosives are missing. besides what keeler said (they were gone prior and this is a recyled story) lets logically think about this. before we went in they had over 400,000 tons. war is not perfect . you can't expect 0 casualties and a perfectly executed plan. we managed to destroy or contain well over 99% of the highly explosive material. in bob's words you are a sucker for not fully understanding the scenario and buying the misrepresentation. yes, it's bad that 380 tons are gone, but we're a hell of a lot safer that over 350,000 tons have been detained. do you concurr. wouldn't it have been more of a failure if we sat idle longer and waited for more sanctions so the entire stockpile would have been missing? that's exactly what would have happened if kerry was president.

BOB: OK Jay, I honestly hope this addresses all your concerns:
#1: The Military Poll---So the military favor Bush. I am not surprised. Has the military vote ever supported a Democrat / Liberal especially in a time of war? I can't imagine it has. It is interesting, cause I saw a poll last night on CNN international, about which candidates Muslim Americans support: Amazingly…
-----68% support Kerry
-----11% support Nader-----
And pulling up the rear…that’s right…Bush with 4%!
This is really strange, cause in the 2000 Election, the Muslim American community overwhelmingly supported Bush! Now if Bush is spreading liberty and freedom to the Middle East, then why in the world would the Muslim American community, with family and roots in the region, protest? Any ideas?
#2: Kerry’s Gulf votes---Next, your point about Kerry’s vote against the 1991 Gulf War seems valid to me. I can't argue here. All I can say, as Bush has said many times, is that the world changed on Sept 11th and everyone looks at these issues differently now. And about the 87 billion vote…I have already attacked Kerry on the Blog about his Iraq-related voting record. I think I called it “unforgivable,” I still think it sucks.
#3: The Iraqi Contribution---Now for the last time, about the 90% figure and where I include the Iraqi army and police: No one is “disregarding” or “marginalizing” or “not counting” the Iraqi contribution. Not John Kerry. Not me.
But in the Blog (and the debates) we were faced with a question: Has Bush succeeded in rallying other countries to get involved and send over troops to help us liberate Iraq? (Obviously, we were talking about support that is neither American nor Iraqi.) The answer is still, no.
And you are worried that this 90% comment “won’t help us win the hearts of Iraqis”? Under the Bush administration the Iraqi people have seen:
----A disgusting, wide-spread prison scandal. (For which no one of major rank has been held accountable.)
----Practices that Amnesty International denounce. “International human rights standards continued to be flouted in the name of the “war on terror”, resulting in thousands of women and men suffering unlawful detention, unfair trial and torture – often solely because of their ethnic or religious background.” http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/index-eng
----The Geneva Convention broken repeatedly (with individuals being held in secret detention, without access to the Red Cross).
----18 months of instability and violence (Including entire cities that are in such chaos, that they have been abandoned and labeled “no-go” zones).
----13,908 civilian casualties!
And you are worried that Kerry’s 90% comment will cost us the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people?!......Wow.

JAY: good points, but where do you place iraqi casualties if not with the coalition? i think his unforgivable record sucks as well. in times like these where there is a crisis in the middle east we can't have an undecisive, contradictory, passive president. you or no one else for that matter can argue his gulf war and 87 billion voting record. his campaign is riding on his "global test" theory which he failed to act on in the past. i've said it before, but this guy consistantly acts in a manner that contradicts what he says. cheney is the shiznit

KYLE: "We managed to destroy or contain well over 99% of the highly explosive material." - Jay
Well over 99%. Right. I would love to see ANY article that would back up anything remotely close to that statement. The country is in chaos and we don't know what kind of explosives the insurgents have. We find out when they explode in road side bombs. There are parts of Iraq that we don't get ANY news reports about because reporters are too afraid to go there. If you think Iraq is so stable maybe you can talk Bob A into switching from Canada and moving to Iraq if Kerry wins. I'm sure they need some lawyers and resturants over there.
The problem is that Iraq lacked well over 99% of any weapons of mass destruction and Bush has not admitted that he is wasting our time and resources in a country that had well under 1% to do with 9/11.

CHUCK: Jay, I am going to answer these Q's, but I don't really know why. Especially because when i give reasoned answers, you will not respond and needle about one line i make (probably a Bush bashing comment).
MILITARY POLL---Combination of reasons: (these are generalizations, not to offend the many honorable, intelligent military men/women fighting for my freedom
1. Bush is the President. You need to believe in your leader in order to wake up each morning, ready to die.
2. Military people are less likely to value non-forceful techniques that would be used by a more diplomatic President Kerry.
3. Those in the armed forces are less educated, so there decisions are manipulated and exploited by a headline-driven media, and tough rhetoric from republicans. (by the way, that may be harsh, so i'll preface that those men are far more honorable and gutsy then me).
4. The military gets to listen to Rush Limbaugh in Iraq, but no left-wing talk radio.
GULF WAR 1---This is one of Kerry's biggest weaknesses. I'll admit it. I don't really know a great deal about this decision, but it seems like Kerry was wrong. However, who knows, maybe Kerry's ideas would have given Kuwait back to Iraq, which was the goal of that war. Plus there is no indication that Kerry would have sit back and let Sadaam take his invasions any further, outside Kuwait. BUT this was A MISTAKE 14 YEARS AGO. His possible mistake 14 years ago as a senator IS NOTHING COMPARED TO BUSH'S FAILURE TODAY. NOTHING. You obviously think the 91 Iraq was a great operation....but they werent dumb enough to ocupy Iraq......Bush was......NOTHING COMPARES TO BUSH'S FAILURE.
$87 BILLION---I am not going into this again. It was a protest vote against the funding of the war. Howard Dean was a factor. BUT there is no way he would have voted no if it were a tie-breaking vote...that's what I truly believe.....Kerry has acually fought for his country, so he values the troops. Again, the vote may have been a mistake. BUT it is NOTHING COMPARED TO BUSH'S FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY PLAN FOR THIS WAR. NOTHING COMPARES.
IRAQI STATUS---I dont know. This is primarily a political argument. I think they should be a separate category because they are unique. Additionally, there are no many of them, and they don't compile much of the actual forces. Finally, I find it sadly ironic that you all of the sudden care about these good peoples deaths....the same pro-war person that will never mention the 15,000 dead civilians......especially when we should be having a very valid discussion on the 15,000 dead civilians in iraq versus the 3000 dead civilians on 9/11.....I personally dont value one innocent person more then another because of where they were lucky enough to be born.
SUMMARY---So there is no magic answer that makes Kerry the greatest leader ever. Every leader has weaknesses and makes mistakes. However, I have a theme, you may have noticed. Kerry is not perfect. No one is. BUT his mistakes are nothing compared to Bush's miserable failures, on every level. And kerry's misjudgments do not compare to Bush's horrific failures, which have made us all less safe.

BEN: what the hell do you guys care if they found these weapons (1 pound of which could bring down a plane)...........i thought theyre were no weapons like this in iraq - so this story must not be true…cant be both of these - both of which you all have tried to argue:
A -saddam had no weapons he wasnt a threat i thought
B- now, he did have some weapons - but we didnt get there soon enough you say
cant be both, your not john kerry

CHUCK: EXPLOSIVES. LIKE ANY MILITARY IS ALLOWED TO HAVE. EXPLOSIVES. NICE TRY.

BOB: Ben, I am surprised to hear a comment like that out of you. You seemed to have missed the point:
A -Saddam had no WMD (you know...nuclear, biological, chemical)
B- Of course, he did have lots of weapons (conventional explosives, short-range missles etc.)
The former would have been a threat to U.S. national security because it could be transfered to terrorists and snuck inside our borders, doing catastrophic damage. However, hand grenades and shoulder propelled rockets sitting in a Baghdad warehouse were not a threat to the homeland. Unfortunately, they are now a threat to our troops who are patrolling around like sitting ducks, having successfully neutralized a non-threat.

BEN: bob and chuck, actualy it was a nice try, because i am right…for the record, under the cease fire terms with the vaunted united nations of 1991 after the Gulf War, saddam was not allowed to have the said material that is under question right now. so actually his military wasnt allowed to have them. of course he did have them, because the new york times has now told us they are missing, in a recycled story meant to hurt bush. bob, we are not talking about "hand grenades" or shoulder fired misslies - thats not whats in question in this argument. we are talking about explosives that bring down airplanes and buildings - not stuff from your common bomb making material compound. not stuff for road side bombsi would say exploseves that weigh 1 pound and can bring down an airplane is a WMD - maybe you disagree. i guess you do. i think that it is pretty powerful stuff. you have to disagree, because if you dont all of your alls emails that said in caps THERE WERE NO WMD BUSH IS A LIAR in over 2300 emails would be wrong.

JAY: kyle, it is undisputed that we have destroyed about 200,000 tons of the same material that the article is referring to and we have a little under 200,000 tons more waiting to be destroyed. it's an old story, but i can dig up the article w/ the statistics if you want.
Kyle, this is from MSNBC: "McClellan also said coalition forces had “destroyed more than 243,000 tons of munitions” and had “secured another nearly 163,000 tons that will be destroyed,” a theme Vice President Dick Cheney picked up on Tuesday in a campaign appearance in Tampa, Fla." My point wasnt that they had WMD's. It was to rebut Chuck. He is buying these tv ads recycling this story to hopefully sway some voters. Apparently he doesn't understand that most of these ads, by both sides, are extremely misrepresenting. I hope most of us understand that these ads are like prescription medicine commercials without giving the side effects. The people who put these ads out put in all the good things about their positions and all the bad things about their opposition's positions. they are extremely misrepresenting b/c they don't explain things that need further explanation. they make things appear so black and white when there is much grey. it seems like they attempt to make it appear as if one candidate's plan for health care or economy or defense is so stupid by only raising these subtle side effects (that are brought on by justifiable reasons but the ads fail to raise them). it sucks b/c SOME people are swayed by such misrepresentations.

SAMMY: Actually Ben, Iraq agrued that the weapons should be kept for eventual use in mining and civilian construction. The U.N. allowed this only with the U.N. overseeing the explosives.
In '96 the U.N. used some of the HMX ( high melting point explosive) for destruction of a germ warfare weapons factory.
In '02 the U.N. found that 35 tons were used in civilian programs leavind 341.7 metric tons. Equivielent to about 380 american tons. 195 of HMX and 141.2 of RDX (rapid detonation explosive) and the rest in PETN (some long sceintific name).
The U.S. knew about the explosives and did nothing to guard them when we invaded Iraq. And to your question that their are no WMD's . Their weren't. These were explosives that we knew about and the U.N. was keeping a watch on them. Not a threat to the U.S. at all. They were using these explosives for civilian projects, mining, and to destroy old weapons factories. If anything, these explosives were a good thing, helping disarm old factories that one day could make WMD's. So again Bush is a liar, and hurt our country again. Why not just hand the explosives over to the terrorists. Because, that is what he basically did. He shoed the insepectors away when we invaded, then did not keep a watch over them when we were their. And the where abouts of the explosives were public knowledge, so any terrorist could just go and get them any time they want. Because even they know that Bush is so stupid that he would overlook 380 american tons of explosives.

JAY: i just watched fahrenhype 911. i thought it was extremely infomative (it actually contained many arguments that i have made on the blog, but more substantiated). i knew moore misrepresented a lot, but not to that extent. i'm asking you all to watch it (especially chuck and john who seem to share moore's views and think they are not misrepresentations). i watched your movie, now it's your turn. i'd like like to discuss both films once everyone/most/some have seen it."It's amazing what you can learn once you hear both sides and make a fully informed decision." Cheney is the bizzy

BEN: john, i dont know where you cut and paste that from......but for you to actually claim that the explosives were to be used for mining and to destroy old weapons factories tells me all i need to know. the point is that the weapons were not there when the troops arrived - so they really couldnt have guarded them if they werent there. i stand by what i wrote in my earlier email. So they have destroyed over 250,000 or more tons.....but you want to focus on 380 tons. this whole discussion is really meaningless, because the weapons werent there when the US arrived. weapons like that are not a threat to the US? we will have to differ on this one.

KYLE: Munitions and powerful explosives are not the same thing. Apples and oranges. My point is that it is a false comparison. The NYT notes why this particular explosive is wanted by terrorists in their 10/25 article: "A special property of HMX and RDX lends them to smuggling and terrorism, experts said. While violently energetic when detonated, they are insensitive to shock and physical abuse during handling and transport because of their chemical stability. A hammer blow does nothing. It takes a detonator, like a blasting cap, to release the stored energy."
The White House believes the weapons at Al Qaqaa were there after the war started on March 20, 2003. Scott McClellan said so in his Press Gaggle 10/25/04. The White House has back pedled on this issue and said in todays NYT that it is a "mystery" when the explosives disappeared and the President is not commenting on the issue. Is this the October surprise?

JAY: Kyle, I can’t believe you are running with this story. I would understand others’ motives, but not you. First, I’d like you to explain the difference between the munitions destroyed and detained and the explosives missing (“apples and oranges”). Do you think that explosives aren’t considered munitions? There are plenty of sources out there stating that the coalition has destroyed and detained huge stockpiles of the same material that is missing and what is missing is a small percentage. Would we be safer if we didn’t go into Iraq and all the material would still be in Sadam’s hands? (Chuck too)Second, this story broke before it was verified. The head of CBS was quoted saying he planned on running the story October 31, but he was afraid the story wouldn’t hold. So they gave it to their sister Co. NYT (which ran the story prior to getting all the facts straight). What do you think they were trying to do? Maybe influence the election? If this would have been done by FOX guess who would be bitching their ass off (c’mon chuck, you know you would).Third, your candidate decided to run w/ the story before it was verified and before he had all the facts. Kerry is jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts. Bush addressed this today. Do you think it’s OK that Kerry is running with this story without knowing all the facts or stating the facts? It is a fct that Kerry doesn’t have all the facts and he is running with it? If it went Kerry’s way, Saddam would have all these weapons at his disposal (we would have been a hell of a lot safer then, right?). Seems like desperation to me.Facts: In Jan. 2003 IAEA tagged and sealed the facility. In March the inspectors went back and couldn’t tell if all the weapons that were tagged by IAEA were there (then war starts). Next, the 3rd Infrantry engaged Iraqi forces at the facility. Iraqi forces were fighting our troops from inside the facility. Then the 101st arrived at the facility on its mission to Baghdad. They did a cursory search for WMD’s and moved on because their mission was Baghdad. It is unknown whether the explosives were present at the time the 101st were there. It is fucking war guys, not taking inventory at Wal-Mart.For insurgents to get 38 truck loads by our convoys in 28 days while the roads were highly guarded is unlikely (our convoys were shooting at anything suspicious that were moving in that area). The only one to take blame, if any, is the head of the 101st division even though they had another mission to do (maybe you can get away w/ blaming it on military incompetence, but I don’t think so). Is bush a military expert? Should he be deciding our on-the-ground military tactics, or should we leave that to our generals?

CHUCK: I am not in the mood right now to go thru this whole story. Especially when everything I say will be refuted by inaccuracies, in a DESPERATE attempt to hang on to the dying Bush-era.
There is no doubt Bush was negligent w/ these explosives, regardless of when they were stolen: If it was before the war, then Bush was negligent, because this facility was under surveilanceIf it was after the war, then Bush was negligent, because this facility was looted while oil was not.
By the way, 12 major sources say it was after US control. NBC kinda says maybe before. AND JAY FILE HAS THE INSANITY TO QUESTION "RUNNING W/ THIS STORY". JAY: I know your side does not like discourse, but sorry....this is a indicative story about Bush, and the facts are what they are.
WMD: THESE ARE NOT FUCKING WMD. CHIEF, DON'T DIGNIFY THEIR DESPERATE ATTEMPTS TO JUSTIFY THE BUSH FAILURE. THEY ARE DESPERATE. THEY FEEL THE POWER SLIPPING AWAY.
SAD AND DESPERATE.
BEN, I must address this. There are 12 major sources (wsj, nyt, etc) that say the weapons WERE THERE UNDER US CONTROL.
NBC has some report that contradicts the 12 major sources.
And you think this 1 STORY supersedes all other of the 12, for no stated reason.
Its fine you want to believe Bush, but it seems unlikely. I would not take those odds (even when i had a gambling problem).
That said, if you want to believe it, then you still must admit negligence for not having any adequate surveilance over the place that was known for having the largest caches of explosives.....unless you believe Bush is such a bastard that he would have the surveilance and just watched the insurgents take the explosives in massive orderly fashion (i doubt that's your view)
So the Choices are: a) Negligence: Allowed looting of explosives after invasionb) Negligence: Failed to have adequate surveillance over the place known to hold tons of explosives, which allowed a massive convoy to have explosives which are killing people. c) Bastard: Had adequate surveillance, but allowed a bunch of lunatics to take 300 tons because he didnt mind these guys having explosives that kill our men and women.
FINALLY: THESE ARE NOT THE WMD's THAT JUSTIFY WAR. BUSH ISNT EVEN TRYING THAT ONE.
Desperate times call for desperate measures, so say what you gotta, in the face of reality, i guess.

KYLE: Jay, I said "apples and oranges" because it is my understanding that this material is different because it is a more refined material than the munitions we have destroyed. I think you conservatives can argue sucessfully that it is the strongest evidence yet that Saddam Hussein had the materials to detonate a nuclear weapon. From what I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this material used is the most dangerous available and can be used for the detonation of a nuclear warhead. I think the reason Fox didn't break the story because they don't exactly agressively investigate this administration.
Are we safer now that we have no idea where this material is?
With little time left, the Bush campaign's response to this issue is weak at the moment and their campaign is off message. They are loosing valuable time going into the weekend. Also, I can answer no consistelty to any question as to whether Bush is an expert on a subject.

BEN: chuck, i will trust the US military who said from 18 months ago that there
were no weapons there when they got there. if you choose to believe
people like the NYT over the military then ok. who are the 12 sources -
where did they get their info from - the NYT? even CNN backed off this
story yesyerday.
so really i dont think any of your 3 options, none of which of course
are in any way favorable to bush, are realistic, because they weapons
werent there when we arrived.
maybe kerry is the desparate one. they are running with an old story
that isnt proven true. everyday Kerry picks up the NYT and runs with
the story of the day - except this one wasnt true. His own adviser, the
man who will be Sec of State of Kerry wins, said yesterday "we dont
know the truth of what happened." Yet, they will run an ad assuming they
do know the truth. if they were in a postion to win, they wouldnt need
to do that.

BOB: Ben, First I’d like to thanks you for your Electorial Overview. I read the whole thing twice and posted it as its own thread at the Blog. Good work.
But about your other emails…you said, “I would say explosives that weigh 1 pound and can bring down an airplane is a WMD - maybe you disagree.”
I do disagree, and I’m not the only one: The President, the CIA and the Defense Department do to. You see, the most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" in official U.S. documents is "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons." I attached a link to a site that demonstrates multiple times that this precise definition has been used by:
---Bush, in communications with Congress.
---The CIA, in reporting on proliferation to Congress.
---The U.S. Department of Defense, in reports to Congress.
---Some U.S. laws (The Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act)
Ben, I regret to inform you that I will have to vote for some other MVC this week.
http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html


BEN: those explosives are used to in nuclear detonators
anyways...what does MVC mean?
ben

JAY: chuck, give me your 12 sources please b/c i think you're bullshitting. if you can prvide me w/ these sources, l'ii read them and discuss the matter w/ you intelligently. i gave you a detailed description of what i read and you came back w/ a generalization along w/ attempts to criticize me. give me the sources you moore wanna be

BOB: Ben, tell me if I'm getting this wrong...You're saying that:
The missing explosives could have been used to detonate the nuclear bombs that Saddam didn't have...Because of this, THEY constitute a WMD.
Have you been drinking, again?
PS MVC is Most Valuable Conservative. Check the Blog polls.

CHUCK: jay, what a joke. i already gave a link w/ dozens of reports. and then you say that you will discuss it w/ me.....well, if i could only be so honored to finally, after 3 months, you would discuss an issue w/ me.....i wont hold my breath.
There are New York Times reports, Wall Street Journal, and BBC reports.....which I am not registered for. There are several more sources out there, but this is what I h
Here are some links:
Wash Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62731-2004Oct25.html?sub=new
Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/10/26/ explosives_were_looted_after_iraq_invasion/
Independent:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048
Australia Broadcast:
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1227830.htm
Jerusalem Post:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1098677410357
Chicago Sun Times:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-nuke26.html
Salon:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/26/explosives/index_np.html
i'm done w/ this issue. its not that important to the choice b/w Bush and Kerry, anways. too me, its just another example of Bush failure in iraq.

JAY: "It pointed to a report that aired Monday on NBC saying that three weeks into the war, the network had staff traveling with the Army's 101st Airborne when the troops temporarily took over Al-Qaqaa. NBC said the troops found stockpiles of conventional weapons but no explosives."
this quote is from one of your articles. most of your articles are citing the NYT (that would be like me citing fox news) and the others i have to register for. they don't state specific facts just weapons are missing and that kerry is blaming it on bush. that's credible stuff. i gave you a timeline that i jotted down while listening to MSNBC this morning with specific facts. i'm on break from class, but when i get home i'll register for the others (although most of them are from left wing sources).

#13: Three Reasons. > Three Strikes?

THREAD BEGAN: October 22nd, 2004
Following a resurgence of Conservative contributions...

BOB: Now we have just 10 days remaining before the big day, so I have one last challenge for y’all:
Give me three specific reasons that you’re voting for your candidate.
In this explanation, don’t mention the other candidate AT ALL or the wonders of the party platform or the ideals of Liberalism / Conservativism (and especially not Evolution and the joys of Capitalism). Just the man and his record. Good luck. I’ll post mine this weekend.

DAN: Kyle, Here is an example of a "luxury afforded to people who failed due to their own poor choices,".......The three strikes and your out policy.
In my opinion, fuck those liberals who fight so diligenly to keep these abusers on the streets. Your argument, "Well the prisons are getting too full." You know what fixes that? The death penalty. I'm NOT saying getting caught with drugs makes you a candidate for capital punishment. These criminals are some of the people who reap the benefits of my tax dollars the through welfare they may collect and blow on drugs, as well as paying for the court systems they end up in. Poor choices, huh? How about letting these people make the same "poor" choice THREE times before imprisioning them. Sounds like something worth fighting for!!!

CHUCK: Economics: So if its so simple, that people wont work w/ higher taxes.....then what was going on in the 90's.....people worked under Clinton's 40% top bracket.....WHY? WHY? That's where Kerry wants to put us....back to clinton top bracket rates....and if i'm not mistaken....people worked....and created 20 million new jobs (21 million more then bush)
Secondly, people that make great innovations (technology, science) are not solely, and probably not primarily, driven by money. If you are in a scientfic field, it much less likely you got there for money....probably more like a unique passion or brain capacity. And these are the people I want working. You and these greedy business men that will only market their new consumer good for a huge profit, etc....that is the type of asshole that I could careless if he works. Someone else will gladly do his job.
Listen there are obviously very complex issues here, and I agree......the whole pie does grow....the problem is, is that it is COMPLETELY CLEAR: The Rich are getting MORE of the newly grown pie, and the Poor are getting LESS. There is no doubt. So the question is not "what should the tax rate be?", the question is, "are you okay w/ rich getting rich and the poor getting poorer?"
Overall, I think you act like the alternative proposed by the democrats is completely communist. Well, sorry to disappoint, but we like getting money and growing the economy like all capitalists.....we just have a little more sense and compassion. You make obviously strong and informed points, but they are similar to the beliefs of all money-driven people.....not just conservatives
IRAQ: Get the hell out of here w/ this 'mainstream media shit'. What the hell is wrong w/ you? This is nuts. I understand you support for the war, while i disagree. But for you to live in a fantasy land that this is going well, is absurd. It is just dillusional. Sure its a long fight, but its a lot worse because of Bush's mismanagement. You compare to rebuilding in Germany....that presumes we have control of the country....we don't. We have gone in circles about this thing for months, so i'll avoid the specifics. but get you head out of the same rose-colored glasses worn by president bush, and see that this thing has not gone well. You talking about the great things going on in iraq, is as unfair as Michael Moore showing kids flying kites before the invasion......they both distort reality. I DID IT, I admitted michael moore was distorting iraq......So do you part and be honest, too.

SAMMY: Peter, I think you should be questioned if you think domestic policy is something to scoff at. I am not sure what you are trying to say in the least. Please give examples. Atleast you acknowledge that the current administration is doing a horrible job here at home. And I don't know if you realize we are not do so well in Iraq either. I would have to say as a business owner, like your father, I would need to know just a little about the free market to suceed at all. So please don't even try to insult me at all.
Now for your freind Aram. I don't know him and I will not insult him, but Aram is quick to point out the New York Times, but forgets to point out Bush's endorsements.Yes, Bush was endorsed by the Chicago Tribune. Try picking it up once in a while Pete you do live their now. The Chicago Tribune has over 1 million papers in circulation. Yes that is smaller than the Times' 1.7 million in circulation. But still a pretty good achievement. Also, Aram has not told us that The New York times supported Al Gore in 2000 and the Tribune endorsed Bush in 2000. Now for the Times excepting money from the Kerry campaign. i could find no evidence of this, on the other hand I have found proof that The New York Times have donated to the Kerry campaign. Maybe this is what Aram meant to say, or maybe he is right. Their is undeniable proof though that the Times does endorse kerry and has given money to the campaign. While giving no money to the Bush campaign. Actually, the Times have given the campaign 27 thousand to the campaign. One more fun fact, the donations are not from the actual paper, they are from individuals empolyed by the Times. The max donation is 2000 by an individual, so really this is a meager number compared to the individual cotributions over the whole election. From "opensecrets.org" I found that their have been 106,595 individuals that have contributed the max donation so far to both parties. Shit I even donated 10 dollars to the Kerry campaign. And I am sure that rerpublican endoresed media outlets have done the same for Bush. So while Aram brings up a good point, I think you should still not bat an eyelash at this.

CHUCK: Not that anyone has been missing my long emails, but here goes:
Sammartano: Love the energy.....agreed 'angry nugent' borders on anarchist
Jay: you comment on the 'resume' argument. Well, the problem is is that you guys act like this world is based entirely on merit....but then you have Bush running the whole operation, who has earned nothing. Also, you say about the other dads.....agreed, they were all influences.....but in the case of John Edwards, his Dads influence was VALUES, not MONEY....so when edwards saw his dad work in a mill....he learned hard work.....which is what sets him apart from the other 3.
Jay: seriously, anyone that supports bush has no credibilty to question Kerry's plan for spending
Bob: Read my economic comments to Bob....and by the way, when you get tax breaks for stock investment, the rich invest in stock.....and then you are just filling the pockets of skyrocketing CEO salaries....just the facts. Again, you claim we pay more taxes....you are just wrong. I know you dont make over $200,000 and those are the only people that gained....and again, we worked and earned and thrieved under Clinton....and that is where Kerry will return us to. Also, Theresa is great....laura bush is the bitch that tells the disabled and sick that there is no hope in stem cell research.
Chief: I could have saved some breathe on peter, if i read your email first.
Bob: I could have saved some breathe on peter, if i read you simple 'pete, stop it' email first.
Nug: All of the sudden, 'not-angry nugent' created a lot of gray areas in what is good and bad.....that is good. Because now we can squabble over the specifics of what programs are productive versus counterproductive
VISCIONE: Going to jail for life after 3 criminal convictions is a LUXURY? You said it, not me. By the way, I think you are 1 conviction away and only 25 years old.....so are you prepared to go to jail for life? I am not wasting any energy on that absurd argument. Okay, one more thought....YOU HAVE BEEN ARRESTED AT LEAST 2 TIMES.....BUT YOU WANT TO GIVE THE LIFE IN PRISON for 3 strikes people......ha.

3 Reasons to vote for John Kerry
1. John Kerry strongly believes in and supports science and technology (specifically stem cell and alternative fuels).
2. John Kerry has a tremendously informed world-view along w/ respect for all of worlds people. This knowledge and respect can unite a divided world (from the war in iraq, to the human rights disasters in china/africa/mexico/etc, to the ignored struggle in israel).
3. John Kerry has consistently fought against poverty and sought to help insure the uninsured, and that gives me confidence that (along w/ his formal plan) he will find a way to reduce poverty and provide more health insurance. This is important to me, despite the fact that I do not know anyone in poverty, or know anyone that is uninsured, because I think (and John Kerry agrees) that the richest nation ever should not have people in poverty or unable to receive medical treatment.

DAN: I truly did not understand you response at all. Firstoff, when did I say that going to jail for life is aluxury? I didn't look back at my e-mail, but I'mpretty sure the word luxury wasn't written. If youare insinuating that life imprisonment is a luxury ascompared to the death penalty, then yes, I would haveto your question. Secondly, I have been arrested ONE time, and that wasfor a DUI, which was a misdemeanor offense...notapplicable here. By the way, regardless of how manytimes, or what it was for, that is a fucking shittything to add to an e-mail, being that your weren'ttrying to provide examples, you were just being anasshole. Belittling someone to prove a point is adick thing to do. Especially to a good friend.

BOB: I agree with Dan. I don’t think that we should be soft on crime. And I too, hate when liberals coddle criminals and blame society for the faults of individuals. I would consider a strike system. But we must be very, very, very careful what crimes we include on that list. If we include:
---Drunk driving
---Drug possesion
---Criminal Trespass (I got this one)
---Disorderly Conduct
---Indecent Exposure (Me too)
---Assault & Battery
---(That thing Dan did when I had to bail him out on MY vacation)
Then half of us on this Blog would be one drunk bar-fight away from a life sentence.
About Capital Punishment: Everyone deserves a fair trial with all the rights provided to them in the Bill of Rights and the appeals process. But if after the trial process, a person is found guilty of a 3rd malicious, violent crime: (Rape, Child Molestation, Manslaughter, Murder, Assault with a deadly weapon, Kidnapping, etc.) Then I have no problem dropping them in a big garbage disposal and grinding them to liquid pulp. We have better things to spend our tax dollars on then rehabilitating Jeffery Dahmer.
But no theft or drug crimes should be considered in these strikes . And I think age needs to be taken into consideration. If someone isn’t old enough to drink a beer, they aren’t old enough to earn a life sentence. So start at 21, keep it to violent crimes and I’d consider it.

DAN: I stand corrected...I've been arrested twice.

BOB: 3 Reasons that I Voted for Kerry:
#1: Kerry is qualified to be Commander-and-Chief---I think it is important in a time of war, for the Commander-and-Chief to know what war actually looks like. Kerry does. When Kerry sees a casualty report or decides to deploy more troops he will have a clear understanding of everything that entails.
#2: Kerry puts science before religion---(Nugent, even you can appreciate this).
He supports stem-cell research. I think that as president he will not wear his religion on his sleeve or allow his personal beliefs to interfere with his secular office.
#3: Kerry is intelligent---What more can I say? As we saw in the 3 debates he won, he knows his stuff, is well spoken and has a presidential demeanor.

ABROMOVICH: My three (or seven) reasons:
1) George Bush has taken a proactive approach to fighting the war on terror. Before September 11th if we would have gone into Afghanistan to disrupt the Taliban regime all of you liberals would have shit your pants like you are now about Iraq. We can no longer wait for terrorists to strike our land, we must hunt them down before they can do any more harm to our country. Although we may never know, what George Bush did by invading Iraq could have spared this country from another major catastrophie. I am not about to support anyone who doesnt protect our country first or leaves the security of our nation in the hands of a coalition of nations. Can someone answer this for me - How can we have a Commander in Chief leading a war who says it is "the wrong war at the wrong time?" What kind of support does a Commander in Cheif get from other countries, for a war he does not feel is just? I guess it will just have to pass the "Global Test." What exactly is the "Global Test?" Do all nations have to approve any actions the US takes now? The Global test can be whatever you want it to be. For the other canidates it is what is called being a pussy (I sound like Viscione).
2) I currently work for what would be classified as a small business. George Bush's tax cuts are what allows small businesses to grow and prosper even when our economy is in an economic downswing. Under other leadership taxes would eliminate the opportunity for many small businesses to flourish. Small business is the heart and soul of our economy.
3) Abortion
4) Have you seen who the first lady would be?
5) The other canidates are liars and are not qualified.
6) I will never vote for anyone (Dem or Rep) who votes against providing body armor, ammunition, and armored vehicles to our troops when they are in a war?
7) George Bush owns a timber company.

DAN: 1. Bush's stance on the war. I am for the liberation of Iraq. One year, or 10 years from now, it doesn't matter, there WILL be a "totaly free" Iraq in which other Middle Eastern countries will aspire to become. This can not happen without the help of the Coalition. I like his policy on terrorism. I don't think going about terrorism light-heartedly is going about it the right way. Bush will "stay the course" and do what it takes to protect us. I think others will leave us short when it comes down to it, as well our troops.
2. I don't want my taxes raised. Other candidate's proposals WILL, in the end, raise taxes. There is no other way to implement them without doing so.
3. I like that Bush stands firm on what he believes in, and lets you know exactly where he stands. He does not try to play both sides to avoid loosing popularity. Whether or not I agree with his stances, and there are things I disagree with on his platform, I know where Bush stands because he does not play the middle. He is much more genuine than any other candidate.

BOB: First, I would like to thank Dan for being the only REP so far to follow directions and giving me three reasons why he supports Bush. I would just like to point out that I too, “don't think going about terrorism light-heartedly is going about it the right way.” The Democrats are proposing a different approach to the war on terror, not a light-hearted one.
Abromovich on the other hand, you gave me a mixture of genuine reasons (proactive approach), party platform issues (abortion), bad jokes (timber company) and direct attacks on John Kerry (global test).
I thought the directions were simple…oh well.
By the way, you’ve really swallowed Bush’s talking points hook-line-and-sinker. John Kerry already answered your “Global Test” question in the debates several times. Can he be any clearer?
“I will never cede the authority of our country or our security to any other nation. I'll never give a veto over American security to any other entity -- not a nation, not a country, not an institution. But I know, as I think you do, that our country is strongest when we lead the world, when we lead strong alliances. We are not doing that today. We need to. I have a plan that will help us go out and kill and find the terrorists. And I will not stop in our efforts to hunt down and kill the terrorists.”
And your second concern that Kerry wouldn’t get the same kind of global support as Bush. It is ridiculous. The Coalition is shrinking—eight nations have left. 90% of the costs and the casualties are ours. As Kerry pointed out in the third debate: “If Missouri, just given the number of people from Missouri who are in the military over there today, were a country, it would be the third largest country in the coalition, behind Great Britain and the United States.”
So the question is: Who do you think will muster more international support in Iraq?
[the following text was originally in green]
A fresh face that is in agreement with the international community (admitting the war was wrong and poorly executed) while demonstrating why it is now in all of our interests to clean it up.
[the following text was originally in red]
Or the man who disregarded the 'irrelevant' U.N., and blocked nations that didn't support the war from bidding on reconstruction contracts? This man is the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view his presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security!!!
You tell me, Abromovich.

DAN: I know you are looking for an answer from Bob A. inregards to your international support in Iraqquestion, therefore, will not go into that. I willthough point out your subtle, yet transparent,subliminal Red/Green color scheme when writing yourviews on the candidates. You almost made me realize how evil Bush really is.

BOB: Well Dan, Unfortunately, those reading the Blog will read every post in black and white, but to those who received my full color version (in which text referring to Kerry was green and text referring to Bush was red) I'd like to say: My color scheme wasn't 'subtle' or 'subliminal'.
Green means good. Red means bad.
It was however, irrelevant. (I think it's hilarious that instead of answering the question, you addressed my choice of color!) Just to make you happy though, I will attach the email in the reverse color scheme. Guess what? It reads the same. Next time, try disputing the facts.

ABRAMOVICH: Bob, see my comments below... and its Abramovich:
OK - now he has told me he is not going to leave our security up to other nations etc. and Yes he could be much clearer. This still does not answer the question? What is the Global Test? and what is John Kerrys "plan?" How does one go about completing the "Global Test?"
Do you honestly think that if John Kerry became president all of this countries are just going to jump into this war - of course they are not. The 90% figure does not take into account Iraqi fighters. Do they not count? John Kerry doesnt seem to think so. They are the ones fighting for their own freedom.
Neither will get anymore support. Why should we allow countries who dont support a war we are in to win bids for reconstruction? Disarming Saddam was a victory for the entire world, not just the US. These other countries should be greatful for what Mr. Bush did. I am not concerned about what any europeans think or how they view Bush's presidency. Do they care about how I view their leaders? Didnt think so. As Dan Viscione said - some day there will be peace in Iraq and Afghanistan and the people of those countries will have 2 people to thank, Mr George Bush and Mr Tony Blair.
By the way - why the hell did Kerry make that reference to the Timber Company. That should tell you enough about him. He is just making things up.

DAN: Bob,You chose that color scheme representing eachcandidate, whether subconciously or not, for a reason. There is no arguing that. Also, I wasn't avoiding your question, youspecifically asked Bob A. to answer your question. Iwas merely waiting for him to respond first. I amwalking out the door in a minute, but to brieflyanswer your question, I think after the elections areheld in Iraq and insurgent Iraqis begin to see thecause in which we are fighting for, things will settledown over there. They will then have a realization tothe potential we are helping them to achieve. Inwhich case, prosperity will begin and theinternational community (as well you and many others)will then realize our efforts were not in vain.

CHUCK: VISCIONE, EVERYONE that makes less then $200,000 pays a HIGHER PROPORTION of the taxes under Bush. So you shoulder a HIGHER BURDEN under Bush. Sure you might pay $400 less over a year, but you pay a higher percentage of the overall pot, then you used to.
Also, still know where Bush stands? Because Bush doesnt even know where he stands. Bush said
ABRAMOVICH, Why dont you ask Keeler what the timber company comment means? Because he can tell you, because anyone that looks into it, understands it. But since you refuse to inquire, just joke and mock Kerry, I'll explain:
Bush Claimed: 900,000 small business owners get a tax break under his tax cuts. Kerry Said: That figure (900,000) is ridiculous. Kerry Explained: When President Bush owned $80 in timber company (in 2001), Bush (w/ an $80 investment) would be considered one of those 900,000 "small business owners" Kerry was (somewhat unclearly) explaining that Bush is completely distorting the number of small businesses that got a tax break under Bush
GET IT? NOT HARD, if you allow yourself to use your head and common sense.

BEN: 1. I like who he has appointed to the federal judiciary (including those blocked by Senator Kerry and his Democratic colleagues in the Senate)
2. I agree with the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive strikes against terrorism and "we will make no distinction between those who harbor the terrorists and the terrorists themselves)
3. He isnt a poll driven president who needs to go shooting guns in Ohio to score points. he went into Iraq believeing it was the right thing to do, knowing his presidency would be on the line
I think this will be my last response until the election......with my site and newsletter i cant keep up with all of this right now.
There is going to be a shift in the polls by Friday that will tell us who is going to win. That I can predict. What i can not tell you is for what side it will be.

KYLE: 1. A return to fiscal discipline instead of record deficits.
2. The protection of basic freedoms including a woman's right to choose.
3. Critical thinking and debate instead of devine decisiveness.

SAMMY: 1) Intellegience- John Kerry has the definite skills that are needed in a public official.
2) Religion & State- John Kerry is obviously not influenced by religious fanatics. He wants stem cell research funding, is pro-choice. He is not swayed by the influential religious fanatics.
3) A new face- John Kerry is just what is needed for United States to save face in the international community. A new face is needed to repair the mistakes that have been made in the past 4 years.

MANEY: ...Tonight I actually read all of my e mails, and it is fucking funny. I thought we were not supposed to get personal. holly shit you guys are ripping nug a new ass. I have to ask you bob, are you drunk when you respond to nugent? I don't think u realize that he is no longer human. He is freaking huge! He could rip your arms off and then beat you with them. Which is how I would be feeling after some of your guy's responses If I was nugent. I have basically dropped out do to the fact of boredom. I have my opinions and they are not going to change, just like yours are not changing or J's or anyone. So besides not having time, I just don't see the point. Back and fourth, back and fourth. Plus I see how nasty everyone is getting as the debate gets closer. So sorry, I will keep reading but I prob. will not be chiming in much unless you want to talk about the ladies. Oh and out sourcing. I tried weeks back to bring that up but no one really gave a fuck. So I just let it go since no one seemed interested.

Not voting!
1. What does it matter when the popular vote means nothing?
2. Do not like either candidate.
3. I like how it pisses people off when I tell them that I am not voting!

CHUCK: Maney, You not voting, does make me mad. It makes me not care about your problems. Still love you, though. Just could careless if your job gets shipped overseas, or you lose overtime pay, or whatever.