#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