#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).