Friday, October 22, 2004 By John Ziegler

Amazingly John Kerry is on the verge of perhaps being the next President without having to even TRY to answer numerous legitimate and important questions. While the election for John Kerry would be disturbing based on principle alone, it is even more so when it may happen with the vast majority of Americans having no idea who he is and with the news media allowing him to slide by without ever facing any remotely tough challenges. Here are just a few of the questions that John Kerry has never been asked during this campaign.


Where were you on Christmas of 1968? If you weren't in Cambodia, why did you say you were on the floor of the Senate and that this moment was seared in your memory?

What atrocities did you commit in Vietnam?

What impact do you think your anti-war protest had on POWs and fellow Vets?

Why did you write in your journal that you had never been under fired AFTER you had already applied for a purple heart?

What happened during your Paris meetings with the North Vietnamese while the war was still going on?

Why didn’t you take the free airtime Sinclair offered you to respond to their broadcast on your post-Vietnam activities?

Why don’t you think they have the right to broadcast the documentary “Stolen Honor”?

Why haven’t you signed the form to allow all of your military records released to the public?

Why did Bob Dole and Barry Goldwater resign from the Senate to run for President, while you and John Edwards have not?

Why were you so sure that no one in the second debate audience could possibly make $200,000 a year, even jointly with a spouse?

Why did you and John Edwards both mention Mary Cheney's homosexuality during the debates when the questions had nothing to do with her?

Where in the Constitution is a woman’s “right” to a federally funded abortion?

How can you simultaneously say that your “faith” can’t influence your political views and that faith without works is dead and that your faith influences everything you do?

Why did you vote against the first Gulf War? Why did that war not pass your “Global Test”?

Can you please explain how your vote for the second Iraq War was simply to provide a bargaining chip, when your numerous statements for years prior to the vote indicate that was clearly not the case?

Why should any future pro-war vote in the Senate not be taken less seriously by prospective enemies thanks to your explanation of your vote?

What evidence is there that one million black voters were disenfranchised in 2000?

If that charge is not true, as two federal investigations have concluded, does it not create and exacerbate the divisions in this country that you constantly decry and blame the President for?

What evidence is there that a second Bush Administration would impose a draft or raid social security?

How was it exactly that the President caused the national and political unity to be destroyed post 9/11 and why don’t the Democrats deserve a lot of criticism for that happening?

Do you believe that General Tommy Franks, when he says you are dead wrong about what happened in Tora Bora in the pursuit of Usama bin Laden, that he is lying?

Do you believe that when John Edwards was channeling unborn children as a trial lawyer suing doctors that he was lying in order to exploit the emotions of the juries to get more money from them, or that he really has this ability?

Do you agree with Senator Edwards that if you had been President instead of Bush that Christopher Reeve would have walked instead of died?

Since you ridiculed John Edwards’ qualifications for President what can Americans conclude about other appointments you would make based on the fact that you chose him to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

How are your insulting comments about the Iraq coalition in general and Iyad Allawi in particular consistent with your promise to be the diplomacy President?

In light of the U.N. Oil/Food Scandal, why should we care what the U.N. says and why should the Bush Administration be criticized for the lack of a U.N. resolution authorizing war in Iraq?

Is it a coincidence that you have not once but twice married women who are richer than you?

Why is it that your friends were shocked to find out that you were finally divorced from your first wife, whom you left while she was very depressed, because you had acted like a bachelor for so long?

Why is it that in 20 years in the Senate you are not known for one major idea, bill, or initiative?

When you go to Communion in Catholic Church, which some say you shouldn’t receive because of your stance on abortion, do you believe that you are receiving the ACTUAL body and blood of Jesus Christ?

How much of Michael Moore’s movie is true and if there are falsehoods, name two.

And why his face is so long and thin. Like it was squashed in the closing doors of an elavator.
WHY JOHN??? WHY????????

In all honesty, i tried to find a reason to why i should vote for kerry. I did some research and found out this guys has almost nothing in the senate since he was elected. I dont like bush, but i dislike john kerry more. George Bush has my vote.

kfi640 is a clear channel station. Bush and clearchannel are in bed together. Not to mention the author grew up near me. His family are a bunch of rich near pro golf pricks.

Questions kerry hasn't answered, please..........for every unanswered kerry quesiton, there are 10 unanswered bush questions!

Little things ya know, that with the minimal effort on his part would have benefited all american people but not the corporations.

A quick one
Every meal is a gamble!

There USDA is now a joke, grade A means nothing. Meat is no longer tested until someone dies. Pilgram's Pride was bush's 10th biggest contributor and Texas cattle too. There was a law that Clinton propossed that went through the house and congress but didn't make to Clinton's desk before it was time to leave office. This bill would have insured quality meat for everyone. All Bush had to do was sign it, just like the automatic weapons ban. He just ignored it and it went away and now, the avg joe suffers. As a result there have been a record number of ecoli and lysteria deaths now that the meat industries are left to regulate themselves. Why because it would have cost meat companies an additional 10 cents a lbs to do.

I would pay an extra 10 cents a lbs for piece of mind.
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/6010864.htm
Here is an article about a number deaths and just my area which even references pilgram's pride. By the way, Lysteriosis is a horrible way to die. Its kinda like eboli, where your insides turn to moosh and your brain swells and they drill holes in you head in an attempt to releave the pressure. Unfortunatly once you reach this point, you usually die.

Pure evil. What is the $ per life ratio I wonder?

This is just one of a 100 I can think of.

kfi640 is a clear channel station. Bush and clearchannel are in bed together. Not to mention the author grew up near me. His family are a bunch of rich near pro golf pricks.

Questions kerry hasn't answered, please..........for every unanswered kerry quesiton, there are 10 unanswered bush questions!

Little things ya know, that with the minimal effort on his part would have benefited all american people but not the corporations.

A quick one
Every meal is a gamble!

There USDA is now a joke, grade A means nothing. Meat is no longer tested until someone dies. Pilgram's Pride was bush's 10th biggest contributor and Texas cattle too. There was a law that Clinton propossed that went through the house and congress but didn't make to Clinton's desk before it was time to leave office. This bill would have insured quality meat for everyone. All Bush had to do was sign it, just like the automatic weapons ban. He just ignored it and it went away and now, the avg joe suffers. As a result there have been a record number of ecoli and lysteria deaths now that the meat industries are left to regulate themselves. Why because it would have cost meat companies an additional 10 cents a lbs to do.

I would pay an extra 10 cents a lbs for piece of mind.
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/6010864.htm
Here is an article about a number deaths and just my area which even references pilgram's pride. By the way, Lysteriosis is a horrible way to die. Its kinda like eboli, where your insides turn to moosh and your brain swells and they drill holes in you head in an attempt to releave the pressure. Unfortunatly once you reach this point, you usually die.

Pure evil. What is the $ per life ratio I wonder?

This is just one of a 100 I can think of.

So your familiar with JZ and KFI? I know he does like golf a lot. He started this "Church of Tiger Woods" website like Tiger's god or something.

Here's how I feel about it: http://www.georgebushisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway. com/index.htm

Its a real site.

Here's how I feel about it: http://www.georgebushisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway. com/index.htm

Its a real site.

I cant tell if that site is supposed to be ironic or what. But, I really do think that bush is a douche bag and i'm still gonna vote for him.

i like the puppet on the left, no the puppet on the right is more to my liking.. hey! theres one guy holding both the puppets..!

shut up america, go back to bed! your govornment is in control! heres american gladiator, watch this and get fat and stupid and keep drinking beer you ****ing morons!!

-bill hicks

i like the puppet on the left, no the puppet on the right is more to my liking.. hey! theres one guy holding both the puppets..!

shut up america, go back to bed! your govornment is in control! heres american gladiator, watch this and get fat and stupid and keep drinking beer you ****ing morons!!

-bill hicks
i fukin love hicks, but hate ur avatar!

i like the puppet on the left, no the puppet on the right is more to my liking.. hey! theres one guy holding both the puppets..!

shut up america, go back to bed! your govornment is in control! heres american gladiator, watch this and get fat and stupid and keep drinking beer you ****ing morons!!

-bill hicks

You don't deserve to quote the late, great Hicks.

You seemed more like a Jackass guy to me.

we must not focus on the wrappings, lets focus on what hicks wanted to express..

a elite and ancient family of global rulers, riddiculing the lover classes. a satanic monarchy, hell bent on decadence and destruction. thats our western ruling class, going down.

in 20 years youll have new masters and theyll be drilling you in chinese. youll jog for the master race..

You don't deserve to quote the late, great Hicks.

You seemed more like a Jackass guy to me.

wel maybe you'll become soulmates!!! :rolleyes:

And im pretty sure Hicks was an advocate of free speech.

youre pretty cool, redraw.

I cant tell if that site is supposed to be ironic or what. But, I really do think that bush is a douche bag and i'm still gonna vote for him.

Its real just check out some of the articles. Its actually quite serious besides the name of the website and the picture at the bottom of the page.

we must not focus on the wrappings, lets focus on what hicks wanted to express..

a elite and ancient family of global rulers, riddiculing the lover classes. a satanic monarchy, hell bent on decadence and destruction. thats our western ruling class, going down.

in 20 years youll have new masters and theyll be drilling you in chinese. youll jog for the master race..
Holy ****!!! Is there time to be saved???
:rolleyes:

whats the point in asking him. his answer will change tomorrow.

whats the point in asking him. his answer will change tomorrow.

and why will my answer change tomorrow, human?

and why will my answer change tomorrow, human?
i wasn't speking about you actually. i was speking about john kerry. are you a he or a she anyway?

i wasn't speking about you actually. i was speking about john kerry. are you a he or a she anyway?

none of your buisness. how big is your penis?

none of your buisness. how big is your penis?

well if you're a dude then you'll never know. if you're a girl then you may find out. i wasn't trying to be rude. i was just asking because you responded to my post where i was speaking about a male, john kerry, and you thought i was talking about you. a male with the name panzergirl asking my penis size is kinda scary. if you get my drift. again i am not trying to be offensive.

i like the puppet on the left, no the puppet on the right is more to my liking.. hey! theres one guy holding both the puppets..!

shut up america, go back to bed! your govornment is in control! heres american gladiator, watch this and get fat and stupid and keep drinking beer you ****ing morons!!

-bill hicks



.......Your forgot, and continue ruling the rest of the world as if they were your *****es.

While I don't think John Kerry is an ideal candidate, I don't see him leading us to a Theocracy like Bush is trying to.

Did you read the news on Renquist today? If Renquist goes, Bush will likely have 3 Supreme Court appointments during his next term. That's a scary ****ing thought. A fundamentalist Christian having 3 Supreme Court appointments is tantamount to reversing women's rights, allowing the police state that Bush has set up to continue completely unchecked and changing the balance of power in this country for decades to come. Perhaps it won't be long before we're the United States of Gillead.

Everything Bush has done since gaining office has been geared towards helping his rich cronies get richer. He has gutted envirnmental agencies and rolled back clean air standards, yet calls himself a Steward of the Land. The reason behind these moves was to make it cheaper for his chemical/oil/livestock people have to spend less on waste management efforts, therefore pocket more money.

Bush took us to war on a LIE. His people picked what intelligence they needed to justify the war, ignored repeated warnings on the validity of the intelligence and went to war without making the diplomatic a=efforts he promised in order to get the bill passed. Why? When Bush took over, the price of oil was relatively low. Creating unrest in the Middle East, even though it diddn't affect production around the world, allowed the oil companies to use scare tactics to drive the price to record highs. They are making record profits now.
Also, defense industry cronies are making a killing, as is Cheney's former company (of which he still owns 433,000 stock option, worth roughly $15 mil to him now, $3 mil when he took office).

Here's some more stuff that broke early Monday. There are currently 380 Metric Tons of high explosives missing from a US "protected" weapons dump. This has gone missing since the US took over.
The Bush administration, according to Condi Rice, knew about this a month ago, but said that the information was not released to the public because "it is standard intelligence procedure to not the enemy know such information." Who the **** do they think stole it? The enemy already knew, unless of course my "enemy" they meant the American public. I mean, would you want someone you were counting on to rehire you that you allowed 380 metric tons of high explosive (with a yield equivalent to over 2000 tons of dynamite) went missing into the hands of the people you are swearing to God above that you are keeping under control?

Here's another nice little piece of legislation that is going through committee in both Houses right now, sponsored by Bush's Fundie Cronies:

House Resolution 3799 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3799:)

In summary, if some government official decides to do ANYTHING in the name of "God", whether they are on of off duty, you have no legal recourse.

Worst case scenario:
Your mother/sister/wife/daughter is going through airport security and hey pull her in the back to do a search, if they rape her and say "Damn! God was right! Your ***** is TIGHT!", you have no legal recourse. Any federal judge who decides to hear the case, up to and including the Supreme Court, can be removed for misconduct.

While that is an extreme and unlikely case, it amounts to giving Bush the ability to either stack the Supreme Court with hs Fundie judges, or, just as bad, keep them from hearing any cases where they decide to erect religious monuments with your tax dollars, reintroduce forced prayer in public schools, allow the legislature to overturn Roe vs. Wade as against the Bible.

What about the new leaks about a pre-emptive war in Iran? Apparently the carrier JFK is now sitting within strike range of Tehran. Are the rumors true? I don't know, but this idiot running (ruining) the country right now gives me little reason to doubt it.

I could go on and on with this, and fill pages and pages with little, scary things you will never hear on Fox News, but most people won't read this far.

Yeah, let's go ahead and rehire this man. I still maintain dual citizenship. I can go back to Ireland and get out of it. What can you do?

The Golden Rule : WHO EVER HAS THE GOLD, RULES

Its funny that not one person has mentioned anything about the actual topic of the thread. IMO the questions in the editorial are legitamate and no one has said a word about them, they just want to change the subject and start talking about Bush. People need to take off their "I hate Bush!" blinders and take a look at the guy they are going to vote for to replace him. It is true that Mr. Kerry has lots of questionable things in his own history that he has never had to answer for. I wonder why that is???

Republicans in general have been ******* when it comes to election time. Dole had so much **** on clinton and he didn't use it. The GOP needs to realized that the idiots in this country want to here the dirt, not the issues. Kerry has no plan for social security, a bull**** plan on the war. I love the economic policy that you have to go to his website to see. I could run and say I hated bush and get just as many votes as Kerry. Also, if there are any gun owners in the audience, Kerry wants to tax the **** out of ammunition, make it illegal to sell your gun privately. Extend waiting periods, even if you pass an immediate background check.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/dynamic_duo_1024.jpg

Another reason to despise George Bush....

HE'S FORCING ME TO VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY.....A MAN WHO SHOULD NOT BE ANY COUNTRY'S LEADER.


But, Georgie's so awful....we can't have another 4 years of him & the billionaire boy's club.

hey look its bat*** and blowjob. And by the way the 380 tons they found missing where missing before we took over. get all the facts before you write what you here mr. martin.

hey look its bat*** and blowjob. And by the way the 380 tons they found missing where missing before we took over. get all the facts before you write what you here mr. martin.
Thank you bigdaddy, you beat me to it.

While I don't think John Kerry is an ideal candidate, I don't see him leading us to a Theocracy like Bush is trying to.

Did you read the news on Renquist today? If Renquist goes, Bush will likely have 3 Supreme Court appointments during his next term. That's a scary ****ing thought. A fundamentalist Christian having 3 Supreme Court appointments is tantamount to reversing women's rights, allowing the police state that Bush has set up to continue completely unchecked and changing the balance of power in this country for decades to come. Perhaps it won't be long before we're the United States of Gillead.

Everything Bush has done since gaining office has been geared towards helping his rich cronies get richer. He has gutted envirnmental agencies and rolled back clean air standards, yet calls himself a Steward of the Land. The reason behind these moves was to make it cheaper for his chemical/oil/livestock people have to spend less on waste management efforts, therefore pocket more money.

Bush took us to war on a LIE. His people picked what intelligence they needed to justify the war, ignored repeated warnings on the validity of the intelligence and went to war without making the diplomatic a=efforts he promised in order to get the bill passed. Why? When Bush took over, the price of oil was relatively low. Creating unrest in the Middle East, even though it diddn't affect production around the world, allowed the oil companies to use scare tactics to drive the price to record highs. They are making record profits now.
Also, defense industry cronies are making a killing, as is Cheney's former company (of which he still owns 433,000 stock option, worth roughly $15 mil to him now, $3 mil when he took office).

Here's some more stuff that broke early Monday. There are currently 380 Metric Tons of high explosives missing from a US "protected" weapons dump. This has gone missing since the US took over.
The Bush administration, according to Condi Rice, knew about this a month ago, but said that the information was not released to the public because "it is standard intelligence procedure to not the enemy know such information." Who the **** do they think stole it? The enemy already knew, unless of course my "enemy" they meant the American public. I mean, would you want someone you were counting on to rehire you that you allowed 380 metric tons of high explosive (with a yield equivalent to over 2000 tons of dynamite) went missing into the hands of the people you are swearing to God above that you are keeping under control?

Here's another nice little piece of legislation that is going through committee in both Houses right now, sponsored by Bush's Fundie Cronies:

House Resolution 3799 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3799:)

In summary, if some government official decides to do ANYTHING in the name of "God", whether they are on of off duty, you have no legal recourse.

Worst case scenario:
Your mother/sister/wife/daughter is going through airport security and hey pull her in the back to do a search, if they rape her and say "Damn! God was right! Your ***** is TIGHT!", you have no legal recourse. Any federal judge who decides to hear the case, up to and including the Supreme Court, can be removed for misconduct.

While that is an extreme and unlikely case, it amounts to giving Bush the ability to either stack the Supreme Court with hs Fundie judges, or, just as bad, keep them from hearing any cases where they decide to erect religious monuments with your tax dollars, reintroduce forced prayer in public schools, allow the legislature to overturn Roe vs. Wade as against the Bible.

What about the new leaks about a pre-emptive war in Iran? Apparently the carrier JFK is now sitting within strike range of Tehran. Are the rumors true? I don't know, but this idiot running (ruining) the country right now gives me little reason to doubt it.

I could go on and on with this, and fill pages and pages with little, scary things you will never hear on Fox News, but most people won't read this far.

Yeah, let's go ahead and rehire this man. I still maintain dual citizenship. I can go back to Ireland and get out of it. What can you do?

not as scary to me as kerry appointing them. and just which womens rights do you speak of? there is another way of looking at it. if you are talking about human rights to life then i choose bush. i can't for the life of me figure out the logic of these pro-choice people. its ok to spend our money on making sure that baby sea turtles make it to the sea and that the eggs are not tampered with but its ok to kill a human fetus. to me its no different than you deciding if i get to live or die. john kerry calls himself a catholic, what a disgrace. and as far as bushs police state you claim is coming, i guess maybe we should wait til something happens again. then try to figure out why. there is this old saying...."fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." kerry just doesn't get it. apparently the folks voting for him don't either because he has changed sides more than i change socks. and you guys really want this guy?

as far as bush helping his rich cronies get richer...guess what?....your right! but then again thats what all presidents do. not just bush. and as far as the environmental issues go....sure he made some changes to bills that clinton passed in his last year. clinton was on his way out and wanted to make his place in history and to make the dems look good. unfortunately alot of those regulations that the industries had to conform within 5 years was an impossible goal. not all of the companies could afford it. and it wasn't the big rich ones that you say bush is helping. its the small guys.

i could care less if there ever was a wmd in iraq. with the millions of people discovered in the mass graves i have enough to feel like we did the right thing. the oil thing is a little outdated, over used and is hogwash. when saddam put a price an george srs head. thats what made W want to take him out. personally i would have done the same thing. sure there were ties to oil and alot of money involved there but it was by far not the main reason.

so what you are telling me is that bush was over there watching the weopons at the weopons dump? hahahahaha thats funny. it was all bushs fault right. ahahahahahaha. i am not that gullible.

"Worst case scenario:
Your mother/sister/wife/daughter is going through airport security and hey pull her in the back to do a search, if they rape her and say "Damn! God was right! Your ***** is TIGHT!", you have no legal recourse. Any federal judge who decides to hear the case, up to and including the Supreme Court, can be removed for misconduct" please keep you fantasies to yourself. that is just sick. and your interpretation wherever it came from is very scewed. i however do not agree with this bill as much as you so i AM not going to argue. i don't necessarily agree with everything the republicans do.

i feel we need to put both iran and north korea in check. they are getting out of hand. it saddens me to think that when a man tries to protect his people he is condemned for it.

as far as you moving back to ireland....they might be next on bushs list! naw that was a joke. seriously though, if you went to ireland that would be fine with me. i lived there for 3 months. beautiful place. but they have thier issues too.

look i know you have your opinions on the election and i have mine. take them as such. don't take it personal. life is too short for that. i'm not trying to get to you in any way to piss you off.

Keep on big pappy!!! :)

[QUOTE=big_pappy]not as scary to me as kerry appointing them. and just which womens rights do you speak of? there is another way of looking at it. if you are talking about human rights to life then i choose bush. i can't for the life of me figure out the logic of these pro-choice people. its ok to spend our money on making sure that baby sea turtles make it to the sea and that the eggs are not tampered with but its ok to kill a human fetus. to me its no different than you deciding if i get to live or die. john kerry calls himself a catholic, what a disgrace. and as far as bushs police state you claim is coming, i guess maybe we should wait til something happens again. then try to figure out why. there is this old saying...."fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." kerry just doesn't get it. apparently the folks voting for him don't either because he has changed sides more than i change socks. and you guys really want this guy?

as far as bush helping his rich cronies get richer...guess what?....your right! but then again thats what all presidents do. not just bush. and as far as the environmental issues go....sure he made some changes to bills that clinton passed in his last year. clinton was on his way out and wanted to make his place in history and to make the dems look good. unfortunately alot of those regulations that the industries had to conform within 5 years was an impossible goal. not all of the companies could afford it. and it wasn't the big rich ones that you say bush is helping. its the small guys.

i could care less if there ever was a wmd in iraq. with the millions of people discovered in the mass graves i have enough to feel like we did the right thing. the oil thing is a little outdated, over used and is hogwash. when saddam put a price an george srs head. thats what made W want to take him out. personally i would have done the same thing. sure there were ties to oil and alot of money involved there but it was by far not the main reason.

so what you are telling me is that bush was over there watching the weopons at the weopons dump? hahahahaha thats funny. it was all bushs fault right. ahahahahahaha. i am not that gullible.

"Worst case scenario:
Your mother/sister/wife/daughter is going through airport security and hey pull her in the back to do a search, if they rape her and say "Damn! God was right! Your ***** is TIGHT!", you have no legal recourse. Any federal judge who decides to hear the case, up to and including the Supreme Court, can be removed for misconduct" please keep you fantasies to yourself. that is just sick. and your interpretation wherever it came from is very scewed. i however do not agree with this bill as much as you so i AM not going to argue. i don't necessarily agree with everything the republicans do.

i feel we need to put both iran and north korea in check. they are getting out of hand. it saddens me to think that when a man tries to protect his people he is condemned for it.

as far as you moving back to ireland....they might be next on bushs list! naw that was a joke. seriously though, if you went to ireland that would be fine with me. i lived there for 3 months. beautiful place. but they have thier issues too.

look i know you have your opinions on the election and i have mine. take them as such. don't take it personal. life is too short for that. i'm not trying to get to you in any way to piss you off.

NICELY SAID THERE BIG P

hey look its bat*** and blowjob. And by the way the 380 tons they found missing where missing before we took over. get all the facts before you write what you here mr. martin.
Yes, NBC, backed by GE (a huge Bush contributor) claims the explosives weren't there. Even Matt Drudge isn't believing that one.
The IAEA reports that the explosives were there when they were forced to abandon the facility in preparation for Bush's pre-emtive strike. The Iraqi government reported them missing on Oct 9.

I guess it's a matter of which side's propoganda machine you want to believe. Bush has given us nothing to believe.

Were the weapons missing Bush's fault? Yes, they were. He went into Iraq with no idea what to do after he toppled the regime. He ignored warnings from his top military people that we did not have enough manpower to secure the country. He went in anyway.

I think that Sadam needed to be gotten rid of, too, but there are other ways to do that. Bush knew that, even though it's authorized by our government, assassination wouldn't sit well with the American people. He needed to tie Sadam to Al Quaeda and to WMDs to make America feel scared of this man. His actions since 9/11 have been nothing more than one huge scare tactic attempting to keep the people docile while he runs rampant around the world doing what he wants.

And yes, every American president has done what he can to help those who helped him to power, but very few have sent us to war like this, on a lie, and very few have been willing to sacifice the lives of fellow Americans in order to enrich their cronies.

The simple fact of the matter is that we are much less safe and have far more enemies than we had 4 years ago. Even fomer allies want little to do with us. This is what happens when you elect a person who thinks he's on a divine mission.

If that isn't enough, here's all you ever need to know about Bush, from the second Presidential "debate":

GRABEL: President Bush, during the last four years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it. Thank you.

BUSH: I have made a lot of decisions, and some of them little, like appointments to boards you never heard of, and some of them big.

And in a war, there's a lot of -- there's a lot of tactical decisions that historians will look back and say: He shouldn't have done that. He shouldn't have made that decision. And I'll take responsibility for them. I'm human.

But on the big questions, about whether or not we should have gone into Afghanistan, the big question about whether we should have removed somebody in Iraq, I'll stand by those decisions, because I think they're right.

That's really what you're -- when they ask about the mistakes, that's what they're talking about. They're trying to say, "Did you make a mistake going into Iraq?" And the answer is, "Absolutely not." It was the right decision.

The Duelfer report confirmed that decision today, because what Saddam Hussein was doing was trying to get rid of sanctions so he could reconstitute a weapons program. And the biggest threat facing America is terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. (my note: the report actually said exactly the opposite of this. How ironic that he makes a mistake in the middle of not being able to admit to any)

We knew he hated us. We knew he'd been -- invaded other countries. We knew he tortured his own people.

On the tax cut, it's a big decision. I did the right decision. Our recession was one of the shallowest in modern history.

Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV.

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: But history will look back, and I'm fully prepared to accept any mistakes that history judges to my administration, because the president makes the decisions, the president has to take the responsibility.
In nearly 4 years, he can't think of 3 mistakes he made. That's the scariest thing he has ever done.

Hell, I'm pretty close to perfect, and I make 2 or 3 mistakes a year;)

well think about it niether has Kerry. He can't make up his mind 1 way or the other. He just keeps saying what he wants thinks the people want to hear. I would like to see him answer a question. A firm answer without coming back in a week or 2 and saying something different then. But its like anything else everyone has to pick someone and you always try to pick the lesser of 2 evils in your own mind.

Sadly, in 2000, I thought it was Bush.

VB...

What's your opinion on the role played by the EURO in getting things going in Iraq ?

Getting what things going? Be more specific, please.

Were the weapons missing Bush's fault? Yes, they were. He went into Iraq with no idea what to do after he toppled the regime. He ignored warnings from his top military people that we did not have enough manpower to secure the country. He went in anyway.

those were in the hands of the wrong people before we went there in the first place. what we have lost is a small amount compared to the total amount of what is now out of enemy hands. that point is so stupid. people don't want to look at the whole scope of things. they want to pick all this small **** out and make it look like its the end of the world.

I think that Sadam needed to be gotten rid of, too, but there are other ways to do that. Bush knew that, even though it's authorized by our government, assassination wouldn't sit well with the American people. He needed to tie Sadam to Al Quaeda and to WMDs to make America feel scared of this man. His actions since 9/11 have been nothing more than one huge scare tactic attempting to keep the people docile while he runs rampant around the world doing what he wants.

it would not have made a difference to me how it was accomplished. assaination..whatever it takes. i agree we should have had a better plan for our war with iraq. i mean things aren't as sweet as they should be. but if you really don't think that there was a serious threat, that there still is a serious threat, and that there will be more serious threats in the future you are sadly mistaken. these threats were there before mr bush. they will be there after him too. i feel safer with him as president than i would if the military was in U.N. control. i always felt that we should have just sent in some special ops to take out saddam. but we knew that his sons were just as bad if not worse than sadam. so we had to just go in and take them out.

And yes, every American president has done what he can to help those who helped him to power, but very few have sent us to war like this, on a lie, and very few have been willing to sacifice the lives of fellow Americans in order to enrich their cronies.

i really don't go for the "bush started a war to get rich on" theory. this is extreme lefty thinking here. like i have said before. money did play large role. but this was personal for W, and rightfully so.

The simple fact of the matter is that we are much less safe and have far more enemies than we had 4 years ago. Even fomer allies want little to do with us. This is what happens when you elect a person who thinks he's on a divine mission.

explain how we are less safe. and tell exactly who these new enemies are that we didn't have before.

http://www.swiftvets.com/images/Vets_after.jpg

Posting from the Swift Boats site isn't exactly unbiased, especially when the majority of them have been debunked, including the leader who is on video endorsing Kerry in his las senatorial race as a great leader.

Anyway, I came to post something else that was reported today, though surprizingly it's nowhere to be found on Fox News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3956129.stm

Yeah, this is the guy we need running our country.

vB

Bush probably has NO IDEA about it. It is probably Karl Rove.

those were in the hands of the wrong people before we went there in the first place. what we have lost is a small amount compared to the total amount of what is now out of enemy hands. that point is so stupid. people don't want to look at the whole scope of things. they want to pick all this small **** out and make it look like its the end of the world.
Mind citing some sources for this? They were under UN control before the inspectors were forced to evacuate because Bush wanted to pre-emptively strike.
If they were missing before the US got there, then why is it just recently being reported by the Iraqi puppet regime? We had the inventory from the UN. It would seem to me that if the Special Porces team that arrived on the 10th of April did a thorough inspection, they would have noticed that there were High Explosives on the UN Inventory, yet none to be found on the base.
The Bush Administration says that they were just made aware of this when the Iraqi puppet regime released the news a few weeks ago. Somewhere in there is a lie. Either the Special Forces people didn't do their job properly (doubtful), or Bush was made aware of this last year and is lying about when he knew about it, or he is lying about it being gone in the first place. Either way, he is lying, or his people are, which really amounts to the same thing.

As for it being small in comparison to what's being destroyed, that's rather like saying North Korea would be less of a threat if we took away 7 of the 8 nuclear missiles they have created since Bush took his eye off them in 2000. They would still have 1 left, and 1 is really all you need.
380 tons of High Explosive is NOT a small matter. The yield is roughly the same as a 2 megaton nuclear warhead. While it can't be easily used all together, it can certainly be used to destroy a lot of airplanes, shopping malls, movies theatres, etc. But lets not worry about it. It's only a small amount.



it would not have made a difference to me how it was accomplished. assaination..whatever it takes. i agree we should have had a better plan for our war with iraq. i mean things aren't as sweet as they should be. but if you really don't think that there was a serious threat, that there still is a serious threat, and that there will be more serious threats in the future you are sadly mistaken. these threats were there before mr bush. they will be there after him too. i feel safer with him as president than i would if the military was in U.N. control. i always felt that we should have just sent in some special ops to take out saddam. but we knew that his sons were just as bad if not worse than sadam. so we had to just go in and take them out.

You should really reread this and tell me if it's what you really meant to say. It makes about as much sense as Bush. Things aren't as sweet as they could be??? Jesus.


i really don't go for the "bush started a war to get rich on" theory. this is extreme lefty thinking here. like i have said before. money did play large role. but this was personal for W, and rightfully so.
To get rich on wasn't the entire reason, but a lot of his cronies are doing so. Can you deny that?

My theories behind his wanting to start the war are:

Dick Measuring Contest with Daddy.
Little George has always had problems with Daddy. Political insiders have always called him his mother's son. He pales in comparison to his father in every aspect. This gave him an opportunity to do what daddy was "unable" to. He's starting to realize now tht it wasn't daddy's inability. It was daddy's ability to apply reason to his thought process
Show Daddy He Cares
Yes, Sadam did put a contract out on his life, and this is related to the above in the need to prove himself to daddy. If you think that personal reasons are good enough to go to war why are you sitting here posting on a message board rather than going over there and fighting to avenge the Bush Family honor?
I'm not given to personal attacks, but if you honestly believe that this personal reason was good enough to go to war for, you and I are living in 2 different spheres of reality and you likely don't have the capacity for thought to argue.
OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL
Couldn't find oil in Texas. Second largest reserve in the world. Nuff said. The fact that his buddies are all in oil and defense companies might play a little part in this

explain how we are less safe. and tell exactly who these new enemies are that we didn't have before.
Lemme see...

Europe
The entire populace of Iraq
The thousands of new recruits into Al Quaeda
Most of the rest of the world

How are we less safe?
380 tons of high explosive now in the hands of terrorists. Do you really need more of an explanation than that? You do know that the 380 tons is only a portion of the missing weapons, right? That it's all missing from a single installation, right?
This isn't leftist propoganda. This is fact. The president has even admitted that the ports and air cargo are not well enough screened. A news crew was able to smuggle in spent uranium past airport security. How hard do you think that it would be for terrorists, who are expert smugglers and have connections with other expert smugglers, to get these explosives, even in part, into this country?

.......Your forgot, and continue ruling the rest of the world as if they were your *****es.


**** yeah baby.

vB

Bush probably has NO IDEA about it. It is probably Karl Rove.
And Karl Rove works for...?

Halliburton has acknowledged that it “accepted up to $6 million in kickbacks” in its contract work in Iraq. It is also under scrutiny over allegations of overcharging the government by $61 million in Iraq – a practice for which the company was previously fined $2 million. The company also potentially faces criminal charges in a $180-million international bribery scandal during the time Cheney was CEO of the company. The Pentagon has also "repeatedly warned the company that the food it was serving the 110,000 U.S. troops in Iraq was 'dirty'” with an audit finding "blood all over the floor" of its kitchens, "dirty pans, dirty grills, dirty salad bars and rotting meats…and vegetables." - Boston Globe,

Ok we didn't go into Iraq, we continue using the UN sanctions, that guess what? Only England and the US were abidding to. While the french, russians and Iraq were scamming the food for oil program for all its worth. The UN is a ****ing joke! and if the US were to pull out of the precious UN, it couldn't survive. We make up almost 70 percent of its budget. So Im tired of everyone saying we should of stuck with the inspectors this, we needed to use the UN that. The US for all intents and purposes is the UN, With a little worldly "assistance".

Bush is the antichrist. If you shaved his head you would see the number 666.

Fact:
"Al-Qaeda remains a viable and effective 'network of networks' and has been galvanized by the war in Iraq...the group is present in more than 60 countries and has '18,000 potential terrorists at large.'" - International Institute for Strategic Studies, 5/25/04

I am repulsed at this Iraqi War, the deception that brought us in it, the easy manipulation of fact, the corruption and obscene profiteering on the blood of our American young people that keeps us in it, and the Bush family Iraq-obsessed strategy historically, the rising fatality count. Mutilated bodies hanging from bridges, decapitations. What's to be proud of?
Once in a while I hit a raw nerve, and someone will write me back a scathing email telling me to "get a grip" and that Kerry is just a taller Frencher looking version of Bush. They will recite the litany of similarities- privileged Skull and bones Yalies, etc. A bit like an Oliver and Hardy team they assure it will turn out to be. Then these scathing replies usually remind me what an utter monster Saddam Hussein was because he buried half a million political opponents by conservative counts in Mass graves. Bush parades the guys with their hands cut off before the Press. Yes, Saddam was a bad guy. Were those guys in Rwanda macheteing opposing tribespeople less bad? Did we invade the Congo or Rwanda? Did we invade China when they tortured Christians for having house churches. Did we invade Burma for selling its citizens as slaves (the subject of current Alien Tort Claims Act litigation in California?) Have we invaded the Sudan- they are slaughtering Christians and having them for lunch there.
Look what we are doing! Have you seen pictures of children with half their faces burned by fire explosions? Have you seen legless Veterans? Have you seen pictures of the dead as we violated the Geneva Conventions to extract information in our torture chambers? And how is Jesus reflected when we string a pair of women's underwear on naked Iraqis and pose women pointing at their genitals or holding a leash around their necks? Where is Jesus in this?
Here's the obvious question folks; how many of our political opponents have we buried? How many Iraqi's have we buried by conservative estimates. How is what are doing in Fallujah, Najaf and anywhere else there is opposition to our political agenda, to what Saddam Hussein did to suppress his dissident. How is a Gulag different from what we did in Iraqi prisons? Why is it that I see on the nightly news body counts and counts of the injured only for Americans but no one can give me a straight number of Iraqi dead in this and the first Gulf War. Is anyone even keeping count or don't they count? Who said "pray for your enemies and those who persecute you." Did Jesus say-slaugher them all- but first totally humiliate them until they have heart attacks and strokes, sexually demean and abuse them and throw them to the dogs. Is this the Jesus we put on display? Is this the Jesus we are showing the World.
How many Iraqi's between Bush I and Bush II have we killed, maimed, orphaned, made refugees, dispossessed of their lands and livelihoods, tortured or terrorized. Yes, we are terrorizing those citizens of Iraq who do not want us there. We are occupiers people. Recall any other occupation scenarios if you know any. If you are an American you are lucky that you haven't been occupied ever. We haven't been occupied since the British occupied us before the American Revolution.
If you were a Catholic Irish person in Belfast, you have been occupied. If you were a French person during WWII you have been occupied. You had an invading, unwelcome foreign Army toting around deadly threatening armaments like they owned the joint requiring your cooperation with an Agenda and government of their design and not of your creation. We have no idea what that is like here in America. Imagine it being forced on you on the eve of a bloodbath in which you watched thousands of your citizens being slaughtered as tanks and helicopters rolled in. Tell me we are not the agents of Terror in that scenario. Then tell me again why we are there? Because I don't buy that canned liberty crap from our Commander in Chief (he should fire the speechwriter who is making the WWII analogies) who is putting the World through this horrendous nightmare. I am offended that Bush dares resurrect the ghosts of WWII to justify his War. I am offended by the self-righteous misguided rhetoric, the complete lack of responsibility and accountability for the nightmare that this Administration, through completely failed diplomacy and appreciation for International Law has put us and the World through.
Democracies to be successful must be organic. They must evolve from the people themselves. Sure they sometimes require assistance (just as the French saved us at Yorktown if you recall when the Revolutionaries asked for their intervention) When we became a country, no one from another shore landed on US soil and instructed how to democratize at the end of a tank. We self-determined. We cannot impose self-determination in foreign countries that are hostile to us. They have to choose and evolve into it. We cannot export our model at the edge of a missile and expect people to warm up to us. It's ludicrous. Our Foreign Policy is currently premised on a set of assumptions that are dangerously wrong for this country and are inviting harm on our citizens and citizens of the International community. We need a new Foreign Policy which we are only going to get with a new President and new Administration. The Pearl-Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld inspired ideology is just bad for America and bad for the world. It has not made us safer. It has invited reciprocal hatred against us. How many thousands more lives and limbs do we require before they get the point?

ahhhhhhh to many words

Ok we didn't go into Iraq, we continue using the UN sanctions, that guess what? Only England and the US were abidding to. While the french, russians and Iraq were scamming the food for oil program for all its worth. The UN is a ****ing joke! and if the US were to pull out of the precious UN, it couldn't survive. We make up almost 70 percent of its budget. So Im tired of everyone saying we should of stuck with the inspectors this, we needed to use the UN that. The US for all intents and purposes is the UN, With a little worldly "assistance".
The simple fact of the matter, the one that Bush continues to CHOOSE to overlook, is that the Duelfer report said, quite clearly, that the sanctions were working.
You want to talk about bending the rules for profit, let's look at Halliburton. While Cheney was CEO, they set up an offshore subsidiary for the sole intent of bypassing US sanctions against Iran. Why did they do this? Because the US was the only country with sanctions that prohibited trade and they wanted a piece of the pie, so let's just find a way to legally circumvent US law to make more money.
Halliburton is an energy company. They also have divisions that deal in building nuclear powerplants. Much like the ones the Iranians built and are now using to create weapons grade material for their proliferation efforts.
Is profiteering at the expense of world security only bad when the Europeans do it?

And, for the record, the reason the French, Germans and Russian vehemently opposed the toppling of Hussein was two-fold.
First, they had deal in place with Hussein that gave them development contracts in the Iraqi oilfields when the sanctions were eventually lifted. The original puppet government the US was looking at said they would have to review those contracts, that they were not bound to live up to them.
Second, they knew that if the US invaded and toppled Hussein, complete control of the oilfields would belong to the US for years to come. That's pretty much the situation right now.

They acted no differently than we would have were the situation reversed.

Of course, in all of ths, we need to totally ignore the people from whom Hussein originally received his WMDs to be used against Iran and his own people. We wouldn't want to mention Bush Sr. or Donald Rummsfeld in a factual account of how Sadam kept power for so long, would we?

Someone really needs to look into the Oil for Food scandal.

The simple fact of the matter, the one that Bush continues to CHOOSE to overlook, is that the Duelfer report said, quite clearly, that the sanctions were working.
You want to talk about bending the rules for profit, let's look at Halliburton. While Cheney was CEO, they set up an offshore subsidiary for the sole intent of bypassing US sanctions against Iran. Why did they do this? Because the US was the only country with sanctions that prohibited trade and they wanted a piece of the pie, so let's just find a way to legally circumvent US law to make more money.
Halliburton is an energy company. They also have divisions that deal in building nuclear powerplants. Much like the ones the Iranians built and are now using to create weapons grade material for their proliferation efforts.
Is profiteering at the expense of world security only bad when the Europeans do it?

And, for the record, the reason the French, Germans and Russian vehemently opposed the toppling of Hussein was two-fold.
First, they had deal in place with Hussein that gave them development contracts in the Iraqi oilfields when the sanctions were eventually lifted. The original puppet government the US was looking at said they would have to review those contracts, that they were not bound to live up to them.
Second, they knew that if the US invaded and toppled Hussein, complete control of the oilfields would belong to the US for years to come. That's pretty much the situation right now.

They acted no differently than we would have were the situation reversed.

Of course, in all of ths, we need to totally ignore the people from whom Hussein originally received his WMDs to be used against Iran and his own people. We wouldn't want to mention Bush Sr. or Donald Rummsfeld in a factual account of how Sadam kept power for so long, would we?

The differnce here, and it may be small to some, big a big to me is, private companies in the US and Europe violated or attempted to violate the sanctions. In the case of france and russia, the governments were violating the same santions they help to impose. Not to mention selling them weapons. We all know that private companies tend to do anything for profit margin. I think when governments says "yes we need to have sanctions on Iraq" I feel they should stand behind them. If they wanted control over the oil fields and contracts they should have joined the coalition. Its too late now. They were playing a game, they thought we wouldn't proceed without UN backing, they were wrong.

Also why is John Kerry ducking Bob Woodward? Its not like Woodward is a member of "the vast right wing conspiracy."

My boss in the UK just linked me to this video. It's interesting that the rest of the world is watching our election procedures as if we're some third world banana republic.
If Bush is so right, and if he's appointed by God, as he seems to think, then why all the trickery?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/40459000/rm/_40459555_uselex_palast26_vi.ram

If you have a similar link pointing to the Democratic Party resorting to such tactics, I would love to see it.

If Kerry has 4 band of brothers. How many does Bush have.....considering he DIDN'T F-ING LEAVE TEXAS SOIL!

His band of brothers are Ken Lay of Enron, Lonnie Pilgram and all the other corporate blood suckers!

http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/index.asp?L1=20&L2=24&L3=20&L4=50&L5=20

Read this and see why the terrorist want Bush out.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20041027-121030-7792r.htm

Read this and see why the terrorist want Bush out.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20041027-121030-7792r.htm

So lemme get this straight...you (America), according to Bush, are not supposed to let foreign powers dictate your own foreign policy. But according to you, you are supposed to let foreign terrorists influence who you vote for.

So France and Germany can't have a say in what you do. But a few nutjobs want you to do something and you let that bother you? Please...

My boss in the UK just linked me to this video. It's interesting that the rest of the world is watching our election procedures as if we're some third world banana republic.
If Bush is so right, and if he's appointed by God, as he seems to think, then why all the trickery?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/40459000/rm/_40459555_uselex_palast26_vi.ram

If you have a similar link pointing to the Democratic Party resorting to such tactics, I would love to see it.

What is the point of listening to Jackson whine about something that isn't happening?

John Kerry v. John O'Neill 1971: rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04_rwh081504.rm

What is Kerry going to do in Iraq? I have no idea. I hear him saying he want to build up the army in Iraq, then I hear that he is going to withdraw as soon as possible. Its like this with every major issue. No one knows what Kerry will do. Voting for Kerry is like when you are on a game show and you have the chance between the Ford Pinto and a box that may or may not have anything. Voting for Kerry is like choosing the box over the Pinto, and I have a feeling that the box is going to be empty.

What is the point of listening to Jackson whine about something that isn't happening?

jesse jackson is a fraud himself. he has made millions on suppressing his own people.

John Kerry v. John O'Neill 1971: rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04_rwh081504.rm

What is Kerry going to do in Iraq? I have no idea. I hear him saying he want to build up the army in Iraq, then I hear that he is going to withdraw as soon as possible. Its like this with every major issue. No one knows what Kerry will do. Voting for Kerry is like when you are on a game show and you have the chance between the Ford Pinto and a box that may or may not have anything. Voting for Kerry is like choosing the box over the Pinto, and I have a feeling that the box is going to be empty.

what john kerry wants to do is go over there and half way train some iraqis then do like a frenchman and get out of iraq. history will repeat itself if this happens. the same people that we trian and provide weaponery to will be pissed at us for leaving them out for the wolves to devoure

jesse jackson is a fraud himself. he has made millions on suppressing his own people.

Source?


"what john kerry is going to do.....like a frenchman..."]
How the f*** do you know? Your speculating is making me sick ....

Bottom line, Bush has done a bad job, you don't know what Kerry is going to do, he's laid out a plan, if he sucks over the next 4 years, he should be voted out too.

For ****s sake, Bush was managing an F-ing baseball team 6 before he was elected. The only owner to oppose the wildcard and trading sammy at that!

"what john kerry is going to do.....like a frenchman..."]
How the f*** do you know? Your speculating is making me sick ....

The whole point of this thread is that no one knows for certain what Kerry will do about anything.

The whole point of this thread is that no one knows for certain what Kerry will do about anything.
Actually, he's laid out what he plans to do. Getting it passed witha Repugnican controlled Congress is another matter altoghter.

We basically have have a cchoice between the Devil we know and the Devil we don't. You can't look around and not see that the Devil we know has ****ed this country hard and fast, helped his friends get richer, sent our children to die for a lie when he was too ****ing cowardly to go to Vietnam himself, even while saying at the time he supported the Vietnam war.

So yeah. The Devil we don't know is better in this case. I'll take a "flip-flopper" over a bald faced liar any day of the week. At least we know that if someone over time changes their viewpoints on an issue they are capable of higher thought.

Actually, he's laid out what he plans to do. Getting it passed witha Repugnican controlled Congress is another matter altoghter.

We basically have have a cchoice between the Devil we know and the Devil we don't. You can't look around and not see that the Devil we know has ****ed this country hard and fast, helped his friends get richer, sent our children to die for a lie when he was too ****ing cowardly to go to Vietnam himself, even while saying at the time he supported the Vietnam war.

So yeah. The Devil we don't know is better in this case. I'll take a "flip-flopper" over a bald faced liar any day of the week. At least we know that if someone over time changes their viewpoints on an issue they are capable of higher thought.

What is he going to do about Iraq then because no one including Woodward knows what Kerry will do about it.

My understanding from what he's said is that he plans to ask some other countries to help train the Iraqi forces outside Iraq, where it's safer fr them and they can train at a faster pace and will also open up reconstruction of Iraq to competitive bidding rather than just hand a no-bid, no-accountability contract to a US firm.

Even if that's all he does, it will free up US forces to help secure more than just the oilfields. They will also be able to guard some of the military installations tht Bush hasn't even thought about (being preoccupied with oil and all) and it will start us down the road to regaining the good will of the rest of the world.

Of course this is all contingent upon getting these things past Congress, which looks like it's going Repugnican again. I have a feeling, though, that with Bush out of office, the Repugnicans won'tbe afraid to be more moderate and something might actually get passed.

My understanding from what he's said is that he plans to ask some other countries to help train the Iraqi forces outside Iraq, where it's safer fr them and they can train at a faster pace and will also open up reconstruction of Iraq to competitive bidding rather than just hand a no-bid, no-accountability contract to a US firm.

Even if that's all he does, it will free up US forces to help secure more than just the oilfields. They will also be able to guard some of the military installations tht Bush hasn't even thought about (being preoccupied with oil and all) and it will start us down the road to regaining the good will of the rest of the world.

Of course this is all contingent upon getting these things past Congress, which looks like it's going Repugnican again. I have a feeling, though, that with Bush out of office, the Repugnicans won'tbe afraid to be more moderate and something might actually get passed.

That's a lot of people to move, house, and train. Who in the world is going to pay for all of that. Also you didn't say if he is going to withdraw or bring in more U.S. troops. I am guessing that if Kerry is elected that we would be out of Iraq within a year. That would be disasterous. NATO has been fighting any support for Iraq and France and Germany have already said that they would never send troops to Iraq even if Kerry is elected.

this is what i want to know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!http://tinypic.com/en0wn

Kerry said he will send more troops to Iraq and N Koreas boarder.

Yes, NBC, backed by GE (a huge Bush contributor) claims the explosives weren't there. Even Matt Drudge isn't believing that one.
The IAEA reports that the explosives were there when they were forced to abandon the facility in preparation for Bush's pre-emtive strike. The Iraqi government reported them missing on Oct 9.

I guess it's a matter of which side's propoganda machine you want to believe. Bush has given us nothing to believe.

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH BUSH

ISNT IT THE GENERALS JOB TO RUN THE DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS OF A WAR

SHAME ON YOU VB

Were the weapons missing Bush's fault? Yes, they were. He went into Iraq with no idea what to do after he toppled the regime. He ignored warnings from his top military people that we did not have enough manpower to secure the country. He went in anyway.

I think that Sadam needed to be gotten rid of, too, but there are other ways to do that. Bush knew that, even though it's authorized by our government, assassination wouldn't sit well with the American people. He needed to tie Sadam to Al Quaeda and to WMDs to make America feel scared of this man. His actions since 9/11 have been nothing more than one huge scare tactic attempting to keep the people docile while he runs rampant around the world doing what he wants.

And yes, every American president has done what he can to help those who helped him to power, but very few have sent us to war like this, on a lie, and very few have been willing to sacifice the lives of fellow Americans in order to enrich their cronies.

The simple fact of the matter is that we are much less safe and have far more enemies than we had 4 years ago. Even fomer allies want little to do with us. This is what happens when you elect a person who thinks he's on a divine mission.

If that isn't enough, here's all you ever need to know about Bush, from the second Presidential "debate":


In nearly 4 years, he can't think of 3 mistakes he made. That's the scariest thing he has ever done.

Hell, I'm pretty close to perfect, and I make 2 or 3 mistakes a year;)

if we are much less safe then 4 years ago then why havent we been attacked again

if we werent fighting al zarqawi in iraq what do you think he would be doing... running a business? NO! he would be planning attacks on the US

we successfully took the fight to the terrorists and are fighting them with our military and not our civilians in NYC or DC

Mind citing some sources for this? They were under UN control before the inspectors were forced to evacuate because Bush wanted to pre-emptively strike.
If they were missing before the US got there, then why is it just recently being reported by the Iraqi puppet regime? We had the inventory from the UN. It would seem to me that if the Special Porces team that arrived on the 10th of April did a thorough inspection, they would have noticed that there were High Explosives on the UN Inventory, yet none to be found on the base.
The Bush Administration says that they were just made aware of this when the Iraqi puppet regime released the news a few weeks ago. Somewhere in there is a lie. Either the Special Forces people didn't do their job properly (doubtful), or Bush was made aware of this last year and is lying about when he knew about it, or he is lying about it being gone in the first place. Either way, he is lying, or his people are, which really amounts to the same thing.

As for it being small in comparison to what's being destroyed, that's rather like saying North Korea would be less of a threat if we took away 7 of the 8 nuclear missiles they have created since Bush took his eye off them in 2000. They would still have 1 left, and 1 is really all you need.
380 tons of High Explosive is NOT a small matter. The yield is roughly the same as a 2 megaton nuclear warhead. While it can't be easily used all together, it can certainly be used to destroy a lot of airplanes, shopping malls, movies theatres, etc. But lets not worry about it. It's only a small amount.





You should really reread this and tell me if it's what you really meant to say. It makes about as much sense as Bush. Things aren't as sweet as they could be??? Jesus.



To get rich on wasn't the entire reason, but a lot of his cronies are doing so. Can you deny that?

My theories behind his wanting to start the war are:

Dick Measuring Contest with Daddy.
Little George has always had problems with Daddy. Political insiders have always called him his mother's son. He pales in comparison to his father in every aspect. This gave him an opportunity to do what daddy was "unable" to. He's starting to realize now tht it wasn't daddy's inability. It was daddy's ability to apply reason to his thought process
Show Daddy He Cares
Yes, Sadam did put a contract out on his life, and this is related to the above in the need to prove himself to daddy. If you think that personal reasons are good enough to go to war why are you sitting here posting on a message board rather than going over there and fighting to avenge the Bush Family honor?
I'm not given to personal attacks, but if you honestly believe that this personal reason was good enough to go to war for, you and I are living in 2 different spheres of reality and you likely don't have the capacity for thought to argue.
OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL
Couldn't find oil in Texas. Second largest reserve in the world. Nuff said. The fact that his buddies are all in oil and defense companies might play a little part in this


Lemme see...

Europe
The entire populace of Iraq
The thousands of new recruits into Al Quaeda
Most of the rest of the world

How are we less safe?
380 tons of high explosive now in the hands of terrorists. Do you really need more of an explanation than that? You do know that the 380 tons is only a portion of the missing weapons, right? That it's all missing from a single installation, right?
This isn't leftist propoganda. This is fact. The president has even admitted that the ports and air cargo are not well enough screened. A news crew was able to smuggle in spent uranium past airport security. How hard do you think that it would be for terrorists, who are expert smugglers and have connections with other expert smugglers, to get these explosives, even in part, into this country?

whoa you have footage and proof of actual terrorists stealing explosives that were only rumored to be there

wow youre gonna be rich VB when you sell that tape

I am repulsed at this Iraqi War, the deception that brought us in it, the easy manipulation of fact, the corruption and obscene profiteering on the blood of our American young people that keeps us in it, and the Bush family Iraq-obsessed strategy historically, the rising fatality count. Mutilated bodies hanging from bridges, decapitations. What's to be proud of?
Once in a while I hit a raw nerve, and someone will write me back a scathing email telling me to "get a grip" and that Kerry is just a taller Frencher looking version of Bush. They will recite the litany of similarities- privileged Skull and bones Yalies, etc. A bit like an Oliver and Hardy team they assure it will turn out to be. Then these scathing replies usually remind me what an utter monster Saddam Hussein was because he buried half a million political opponents by conservative counts in Mass graves. Bush parades the guys with their hands cut off before the Press. Yes, Saddam was a bad guy. Were those guys in Rwanda macheteing opposing tribespeople less bad? Did we invade the Congo or Rwanda? Did we invade China when they tortured Christians for having house churches. Did we invade Burma for selling its citizens as slaves (the subject of current Alien Tort Claims Act litigation in California?) Have we invaded the Sudan- they are slaughtering Christians and having them for lunch there.
Look what we are doing! Have you seen pictures of children with half their faces burned by fire explosions? Have you seen legless Veterans? Have you seen pictures of the dead as we violated the Geneva Conventions to extract information in our torture chambers? And how is Jesus reflected when we string a pair of women's underwear on naked Iraqis and pose women pointing at their genitals or holding a leash around their necks? Where is Jesus in this?
Here's the obvious question folks; how many of our political opponents have we buried? How many Iraqi's have we buried by conservative estimates. How is what are doing in Fallujah, Najaf and anywhere else there is opposition to our political agenda, to what Saddam Hussein did to suppress his dissident. How is a Gulag different from what we did in Iraqi prisons? Why is it that I see on the nightly news body counts and counts of the injured only for Americans but no one can give me a straight number of Iraqi dead in this and the first Gulf War. Is anyone even keeping count or don't they count? Who said "pray for your enemies and those who persecute you." Did Jesus say-slaugher them all- but first totally humiliate them until they have heart attacks and strokes, sexually demean and abuse them and throw them to the dogs. Is this the Jesus we put on display? Is this the Jesus we are showing the World.
How many Iraqi's between Bush I and Bush II have we killed, maimed, orphaned, made refugees, dispossessed of their lands and livelihoods, tortured or terrorized. Yes, we are terrorizing those citizens of Iraq who do not want us there. We are occupiers people. Recall any other occupation scenarios if you know any. If you are an American you are lucky that you haven't been occupied ever. We haven't been occupied since the British occupied us before the American Revolution.
If you were a Catholic Irish person in Belfast, you have been occupied. If you were a French person during WWII you have been occupied. You had an invading, unwelcome foreign Army toting around deadly threatening armaments like they owned the joint requiring your cooperation with an Agenda and government of their design and not of your creation. We have no idea what that is like here in America. Imagine it being forced on you on the eve of a bloodbath in which you watched thousands of your citizens being slaughtered as tanks and helicopters rolled in. Tell me we are not the agents of Terror in that scenario. Then tell me again why we are there? Because I don't buy that canned liberty crap from our Commander in Chief (he should fire the speechwriter who is making the WWII analogies) who is putting the World through this horrendous nightmare. I am offended that Bush dares resurrect the ghosts of WWII to justify his War. I am offended by the self-righteous misguided rhetoric, the complete lack of responsibility and accountability for the nightmare that this Administration, through completely failed diplomacy and appreciation for International Law has put us and the World through.
Democracies to be successful must be organic. They must evolve from the people themselves. Sure they sometimes require assistance (just as the French saved us at Yorktown if you recall when the Revolutionaries asked for their intervention) When we became a country, no one from another shore landed on US soil and instructed how to democratize at the end of a tank. We self-determined. We cannot impose self-determination in foreign countries that are hostile to us. They have to choose and evolve into it. We cannot export our model at the edge of a missile and expect people to warm up to us. It's ludicrous. Our Foreign Policy is currently premised on a set of assumptions that are dangerously wrong for this country and are inviting harm on our citizens and citizens of the International community. We need a new Foreign Policy which we are only going to get with a new President and new Administration. The Pearl-Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld inspired ideology is just bad for America and bad for the world. It has not made us safer. It has invited reciprocal hatred against us. How many thousands more lives and limbs do we require before they get the point?

i stopped reading this crap when it was suggested that we invade china

do you want M.A.D.?

get real!

Kerry said he will send more troops to Iraq and N Koreas boarder.

He has has also that he will begin the withdrawal from Iraq within a year. Do you actually think the democrats will let him get away with sending more troops to Iraq and the North Korean Border?

John Kerry v. John O'Neill 1971: rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04_rwh081504.rm

What is Kerry going to do in Iraq? I have no idea. I hear him saying he want to build up the army in Iraq, then I hear that he is going to withdraw as soon as possible. Its like this with every major issue. No one knows what Kerry will do. Voting for Kerry is like when you are on a game show and you have the chance between the Ford Pinto and a box that may or may not have anything. Voting for Kerry is like choosing the box over the Pinto, and I have a feeling that the box is going to be empty.

LOL good post!

couldnt have said it better myself!

wow i just gave out so much bad karma

but you liberals made me with your conspiracy theories and logical fallacies!

no hard feelings guys

(there goes my karma snake:()

whoa you have footage and proof of actual terrorists stealing explosives that were only rumored to be there

wow youre gonna be rich VB when you sell that tape
I had thought that with your inability to either reason or make coherent posts you were some teenage punk kid, but you're too ****ing old to be as stupid as you act.

Iwould love if you could point out where I said I had a tape of the terrorists stealing the weapons. Fact: The UN INventory showed them there. Fact: The US was well prepresented in the Inspection Teams. Fact: The weapons are now gone.

Deductive reasoning says that someone took them. Who is most likely to steal weapons in that part of the world?

Your other reasoning is rather like that Bear Tax episode of The Simpsons. You remember the one? It's where Quigby puts a tax on the town for anti-bear patrols. No one gets attacked by bears, so everyone assumes the tax is working and gladly pays it.
It had been what, 8 years since their last attack? You suffer from the same short-term thinking that most Americans do. This enemy doesn't care if they accomplish this in their own lifetime. Just because there ahsn't been an attack doesn't mean there is one pending. Let Bush get re-elected and we'll revisit this idea that he's made us safer. I have this sneaking suspicion that things are going to heat up if he does.

More directly, you cannot defeat terrorists, no matter what you do. Ask the British about Ireland. Ask the Israelis, or the Spanish.

it had been 8 years since the last attack?

hmmm your math seems a little shady

unless you dont count the attacks on the USS Cole or US embassies just because it doesnt support your michael moore view of the world that there is no terrorist threat

Well, if you want to count attacks that were not directly on US soil, I guess we need to start counting all the terrorist attacks in Iraq (remember the country Georgie Boy told us we would be ot of in 6 months?). If that's the criteria, then we've had hundreds of attacks since 9/11. It's your Georgie Boy who continually refers to them as terrorists.

Now, if the criteria is attacks on US soil, I believe it was 1993 that the van with explosives was parked in the garage at the WTC. Clinton didn't have another attack on US soil for the rest of his 2 terms. I guess you would feel as safe under him?

LOL yeah right! what an idiot! http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/parodies/friendly_fire.jpg

Very cool. Thats a great picture and so true.

Is it just me, or is everyone who puts big in front of their name a retard?

well so much for your freinds the russians and other european countries. no wonder they don't like us. they were supplying sadam with weapons. mr vB. what great people they are!!!

Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms


By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.
John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.
"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."
Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration.
Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.
The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam's weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX, is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said.
The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin, he said.
Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita could not be reached for comment.
The disappearance of the material was reported in a letter Oct. 10 from the Iraqi government to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Disclosure of the missing explosives Monday in a New York Times story was used by the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, who accused the Bush administration of failing to secure the material.
Al-Qaqaa, a known Iraqi weapons site, was monitored closely, Mr. Shaw said.
"That was such a pivotal location, Number 1, that the mere fact of [special explosives] disappearing was impossible," Mr. Shaw said. "And Number 2, if the stuff disappeared, it had to have gone before we got there."
The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that the Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units during the conflict. U.S. forces defeated the defenders around April 3 and found the gates to the facility open, the Pentagon said in a statement yesterday.
A military unit in charge of searching for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, then inspected Al-Qaqaa on May 8, May 11 and May 27, 2003, and found no high explosives that had been monitored in the past by the IAEA.
The Pentagon said there was no evidence of large-scale movement of explosives from the facility after April 6.
"The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd Infantry Division's arrival at the facility," the statement said.
The statement also said that the material may have been removed from the site by Saddam's regime.
According to the Pentagon, U.N. arms inspectors sealed the explosives at Al-Qaqaa in January 2003 and revisited the site in March and noted that the seals were not broken.
It is not known whether the inspectors saw the explosives in March. The U.N. team left the country before the U.S.-led invasion began March 20, 2003.
A second defense official said documents on the Russian support to Iraq reveal that Saddam's government paid the Kremlin for the special forces to provide security for Iraq's Russian arms and to conduct counterintelligence activities designed to prevent U.S. and Western intelligence services from learning about the arms pipeline through Syria.
The Russian arms-removal program was initiated after Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said.
A small portion of Iraq's 650,000 tons to 1 million tons of conventional arms that were found after the war were looted after the U.S.-led invasion, Mr. Shaw said. Russia was Iraq's largest foreign supplier of weaponry, he said.
However, the most important and useful arms and explosives appear to have been separated and moved out as part of carefully designed program. "The organized effort was done in advance of the conflict," Mr. Shaw said.
The Russian forces were tasked with moving special arms out of the country.
Mr. Shaw said foreign intelligence officials believe the Russians worked with Saddam's Mukhabarat intelligence service to separate out special weapons, including high explosives and other arms and related technology, from standard conventional arms spread out in some 200 arms depots.
The Russian weapons were then sent out of the country to Syria, and possibly Lebanon in Russian trucks, Mr. Shaw said.
Mr. Shaw said he believes that the withdrawal of Russian-made weapons and explosives from Iraq was part of plan by Saddam to set up a "redoubt" in Syria that could be used as a base for launching pro-Saddam insurgency operations in Iraq.
The Russian units were dispatched beginning in January 2003 and by March had destroyed hundreds of pages of documents on Russian arms supplies to Iraq while dispersing arms to Syria, the second official said.
Besides their own weapons, the Russians were supplying Saddam with arms made in Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria and other Eastern European nations, he said.
"Whatever was not buried was put on lorries and sent to the Syrian border," the defense official said.
Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.
The director of the Iraqi government front company known as the Al Bashair Trading Co. fled to Syria, where he is in charge of monitoring arms holdings and funding Iraqi insurgent activities, the official said.
Also, an Arabic-language report obtained by U.S. intelligence disclosed the extent of Russian armaments. The 26-page report was written by Abdul Tawab Mullah al Huwaysh, Saddam's minister of military industrialization, who was captured by U.S. forces May 2, 2003.
The Russian "spetsnaz" or special-operations forces were under the GRU military intelligence service and organized large commercial truck convoys for the weapons removal, the official said.
Regarding the explosives, the new Iraqi government reported that 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or high-melting-point explosive, and 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or rapid-detonation explosive, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, were missing.
The material is used in nuclear weapons and also in making military "plastic" high explosive.
Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

Is it just me, or is everyone who puts big in front of their name a retard?

no its just that we don't sit around watching cartoons all day. instead we are paying attention to the important things in the world

Right......

You really think that Osama would want John Kerry as our president?

George Bush is one of the best things ever to happen to Al Queda. One thing Kerry is right about is that Iraq HAS been a rallying point for Al Queda.

GW dropped the ball, and if you haven't picked that up from watching the news as much as you do.....YOU ARE A RETARD or hopelessly blinded by your own right wing views.

Right......

You really think that Osama would want John Kerry as our president?

George Bush is one of the best things ever to happen to Al Queda. One thing Kerry is right about is that Iraq HAS been a rallying point for Al Queda.

GW dropped the ball, and if you haven't picked that up from watching the news as much as you do.....YOU ARE A RETARD or hopelessly blinded by your own right wing views.

hell yeah he wants kerry for pres. kerry is a weakling.


http://tinypic.com/eooy0

What makes you say Kerry will be a weakling? Do any of us REALLY know what he will do?

And is being ineffective worse than actually ****ING THINGS UP as Bush has done?

The Washington Times? Any other source besides the right-wing, Moonie owned times carrying this story? You're going to trust news from a source owned by a cult?

I've read other reports on real news sites that say the Russians called for an investigation into the missing weapons and the US said there was no need. I guess the Russians just wanted to get themselves found out, right?

The Washington Times? Any other source besides the right-wing, Moonie owned times carrying this story? You're going to trust news from a source owned by a cult?

I've read other reports on real news sites that say the Russians called for an investigation into the missing weapons and the US said there was no need. I guess the Russians just wanted to get themselves found out, right?

exactly what other real news site would you be speaking of?

CNN and BBC, for 2. I tend to trust the news at BBC more than CNN. CNN, while not quite Faux News, has been rather complicit in cowing down to the current administration.

Well, if you want to count attacks that were not directly on US soil, I guess we need to start counting all the terrorist attacks in Iraq (remember the country Georgie Boy told us we would be ot of in 6 months?). If that's the criteria, then we've had hundreds of attacks since 9/11. It's your Georgie Boy who continually refers to them as terrorists.

Now, if the criteria is attacks on US soil, I believe it was 1993 that the van with explosives was parked in the garage at the WTC. Clinton didn't have another attack on US soil for the rest of his 2 terms. I guess you would feel as safe under him?

those are battles in a war dip**** not attacks on large numbers of innocent civilians

get it right

and youre right i would feel really safe under clinton because the terrorists liked him considering that he refused to take Bin Laden when the Saudis were offering him to us

CNN and BBC, for 2. I tend to trust the news at BBC more than CNN. CNN, while not quite Faux News, has been rather complicit in cowing down to the current administration.

you should watch Al Jazeera instead (they recently became available on satellite in the states... if you can afford it)

theres probably more people on that channel that agree with your views than on the BBC

those are battles in a war dip**** not attacks on large numbers of innocent civilians

get it right

and youre right i would feel really safe under clinton because the terrorists liked him considering that he refused to take Bin Laden when the Saudis were offering him to us
So, the car bombs they have planted killing civilians are just acts of war?

The Saudis never offered Usama Bin Laden to the US. It was Clinton's anti-terror policy, initially shut down and rejected by Bush, that had Bin Laden on the run. You really need to find something besides Fox News on your TV.

CNN and BBC, for 2. I tend to trust the news at BBC more than CNN. CNN, while not quite Faux News, has been rather complicit in cowing down to the current administration.


ahahahahaha thats funny. you really shoud think about ireland if you don't think cnn is a lefty network. hahahahahaha! wait bbc hmm out of......GB...yeah um sure. when did you need the ticket?

ahahahahaha thats funny. you really shoud think about ireland if you don't think cnn is a lefty network. hahahahahaha! wait bbc hmm out of......GB...yeah um sure. when did you need the ticket?
That's the best you can do? You can't refute it anywhere except from the neo-con cult-owned rag?

That's the best you can do? You can't refute it anywhere except from the neo-con cult-owned rag?


i meant if you are gonna ask me for non-partisan media then do me the same. obviously there truely isn't such a thing so your arguement is a mute point.

i meant if you are gonna ask me for non-partisan media then do me the same. obviously there truely isn't such a thing so your arguement is a mute point.
How about video evidence?

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847

Oct. 28, 2004 — The strongest evidence to date indicates that conventional explosives missing from Iraq's Al-Qaqaa installation disappeared after the United States had taken control of Iraq.

Barrels inside the Al-Qaqaa facility appear on videotape shot by ABC television affiliate KSTP of St. Paul, Minn., which had a crew embedded with the 101st Airborne Division when it passed through Al-Qaqaa on April 18, 2003 — nine days after Baghdad fell.

Experts who have studied the images say the barrels on the tape contain the high explosive HMX, and the U.N. markings on the barrels are clear.

"I talked to a former inspector who's a colleague of mine, and he confirmed that, indeed, these pictures look just like what he remembers seeing inside those bunkers," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.

The barrels were found inside sealed bunkers, which American soldiers are seen on the videotape cutting through. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency sealed the bunkers where the explosives were kept just before the war began.

"The seal's critical," Albright said. "The fact that there's a photo of what looks like an IAEA seal means that what's behind those doors is HMX. They only sealed bunkers that had HMX in them."

After the bunkers were opened, the 101st was not ordered to secure the facility. A senior officer told ABC News the division would not have had nearly enough soldiers to do so.

It remains unclear how much HMX was at the facility, but what does seem clear is that the U.S. military opened the bunkers at Al-Qaqaa and left them unguarded. Since then, the material has disappeared.

no its just that we don't sit around watching cartoons all day. instead we are paying attention to the important things in the world


...yeah no ****!!! lol lol lol What kind of dork has some japanese animation as his avatar. Funny ****!!! I can see him practicing those moves in the mirror every night.

excerpt from article:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior Pentagon officials distanced themselves from comments in the Washington Times by Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John Shaw about the explosives.
Shaw said Russian troops working with Iraqi intelligence moved the explosives to Syria and possibly other countries before the war.

Shaw said Russian special forces "almost certainly" removed the material from the Al Qaqaa complex, about 20 miles south of Baghdad, before the war to hide evidence of Russian "contractual arrangements" with the Saddam Hussein regime.

The missing explosives -- RDX and HMX -- were probably of Russian origin, he said.

Shaw, the Pentagon's point person for international technology security, said the Russians brought troops into Iraq before the war to disperse Saddam's weapons.

He said they were moved to Syria, Lebanon and possibly Iran, according to the Washington Times report.

But senior Pentagon officials told CNN they have seen no intelligence information that would corroborate Shaw's assessment.

Asked about Shaw's comments during an interview on WABC radio in New York, Rumsfeld said, "No, I have no information on that at all and cannot validate that even slightly."

Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita said Shaw was not speaking for the Pentagon and that his views were not those of senior defense officials. DiRita also said that Shaw's superiors were talking to him about his comments.
The rest of the article:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/28/iraq.explosives/index.html

...yeah no ****!!! lol lol lol What kind of dork has some japanese animation as his avatar. Funny ****!!! I can see him practicing those moves in the mirror every night.


i can't stop laughing! :D

The explosives we're there after the invasion. No need to protect them right? We gotta protect the oil fields!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

The explosives we're there after the invasion. No need to protect them right? We gotta protect the oil fields!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

even that lefty artical states that it is uncertain and stilentertains the fact that they were moved before the fall of bagdad. did you read the entire artical? or do have selective reading? seems you are forming your own opinion of what may have happened.