Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq

"Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq
> By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
> 26 October 2004
>
>

Funny how this is old news! The news article said it was missing since the
invasion of Iraq. In reality it was missing BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. At
that time it was under watch of the UN. Why is this Bush's fault?? These
explosives were in the news over a year ago!
Left-wing spin, smoke screen on old news!
Greg

> The Dems know that most people who vote Democratic are stupid and
> uneduacated,
> These people very rarely read past the headlines.

Boy, you sure put those "uneduacated" "Dems" in their place.

>> The Dems know that most people who vote Democratic are stupid and
>> uneduacated,
>
> Yeah, that's what they are, uneduacated! And they haven't learnt much,
> neither!

Now now. Don't misunderestimate them.

"jtpr" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> What I get a kick out of is if we HADN'T gone it there would be 10 times
> that amount in SH's hands, but now 'cause of the election he makes a big
> deal out of this. The man is a goof...
>
> --
> -Jim
> ©¿©¬
>

What I get a kick out of is the fact that with the WMD's that were never found, it is the Left's position that they never existed.
Whereas the "350 tons" of high explosives that went missing, probably in the weeks before the invasion, did exists, even thought
they were never found.

BTW, here is a quote from Iraqi insurgent Abu Jalal on the US election: 'We've got to work to change the election, and we've done
so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into the mud'...

This makes it quite clear that the Iraqi Insurgency believes, perhaps rightly so, that they have a better chance of winning their
war against freedom with John Kerry at the helm.
--
Al Reid

What Bombshell? A recycled and misleading report from April 2003?

The reality of the situation is that the explosives either never existed of were moved prior to the war. If the former, it shows
the UN weapon inspectors incompetence, since they stated that they were there. If the latter, it shows that large quantities of
conventional and WMD's were moved out of Iraq prior to the start of major combat.

It does, however, clearly show that the major newsprint and network news organizations are hell bent on effecting the outcome of the
election, even if they have to invent or recycle & embellish old stories to have the desired effect. CBS's 60 Minutes was all
prepared to air this discredited and biased anti-Bush hit piece on October 31st, just 36 hours before the start of the election.

--
Al Reid

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so." --- Mark Twain

"Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq
> By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
> 26 October 2004
>
> In a massive pre-election embarrassment for the Bush administration,
> nearly 350 tons of lethal explosives - which could be used to trigger
> nuclear weapons - have vanished from a military facility in Iraq
> supposed to have been guarded by US troops.
>
> Hardly had the disappearance come to light than John Kerry, the
> Democratic presidential challenger, seized on the episode as proof
> that George Bush was incapable of keeping America safe. The material
> could already be in terrorist hands, he warned yesterday.
>
> According to The New York Times, which broke the story in a lengthy
> front-page story, the missing stockpiles - some 350 tons in all - are
> of HMX, RMX and PETN, extremely powerful, conventional explosives that
> are used to blow up buildings, fill missile warheads or detonate
> nuclear weapons. So devastating are they that just one pound of a
> similar explosive was enough to destroy Pan Am flight 103 over
> Lockerbie in December 1988. HMX, RMX, or explosives like them have
> been used in car and apartment bombings in Moscow and Riyadh, Saudi
> Arabia, in recent years.
>
> This was "one of the great blunders of the war," Mr Kerry said on the
> campaign trail in the swing state of New Hampshire. A statement from
> his campaign said the "unbelievable incompetence of this President and
> this administration has put our troops at risk and this country at
> greater risk", adding that Mr Bush, "who talks tough and brags about
> making America safer, has once again failed to deliver",
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048

> To be clear...
>
> "the man" I refer to is Kerry.
>
> --
> -Jim
> ©¿©¬
>
>

It was clear to me. I was just piling on<g>

"Al Reid"
> What Bombshell? A recycled and misleading report from April 2003?
>
> The reality of the situation is that the explosives either never existed
of were moved prior to the war. If the former, it shows
> the UN weapon inspectors incompetence, since they stated that they were
there. If the latter, it shows that large quantities of
> conventional and WMD's were moved out of Iraq prior to the start of major
combat.
>
> It does, however, clearly show that the major newsprint and network news
organizations are hell bent on effecting the outcome of the
> election, even if they have to invent or recycle & embellish old stories
to have the desired effect. CBS's 60 Minutes was all
> prepared to air this discredited and biased anti-Bush hit piece on October
31st, just 36 hours before the start of the election.


There also seems to be some U.N. collution in the story's release. They
just recently concluded their report. Could it be they prefer Kerry I
wonder?

> What I get a kick out of is the fact that with the WMD's that were never
> found, it is the Left's position that they never existed.
> Whereas the "350 tons" of high explosives that went missing, probably in
> the weeks before the invasion, did exists, even thought
> they were never found.

I'm glad you get a kick out of it. The reality is that you're confusing
material that has been tagged, sealed, and inventoried, vs four rounds of
weapons inspections involving thousands of inspectors who searched for over
a decade and have yet to find any WMD's.

One is known to exist, the other is just White House propaganda that many
gullible people still believe in.

"GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On 27 Oct 2004 07:35:24 -0700, [email protected] (BowTie) wrote:
>
> >Exactly. NBC News is even saying the story is bunk.
>
> You're lying.
>
> >This is just like what the left attempted with Clarence Thomas. Or
> >perhaps the Bush, U2, Iran hostage negotiation charges. "The
> >seriousness of the charges is more important than the nature of the
> >evidence.". These people will stop at nothing to sieze power. Kerry
> >and Edwards would sell their mothers to win Ohio and Florida and
> >Wisconsin.
> >
>
> The reality is Bush and his coterie do not have the courage to
> stand behind their bad decisions, choosing to hide behind our
> troops, pretending it was their call.
>
> "The senator is making wild charges about missing explosives," said
> Bush. "Think about that: The senator is denigrating the action of our
> troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts."

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

This was before the invasion.

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> One is known to exist, the other is just White House propaganda that many
> gullible people still believe in.
>

Gullible people like John Kerry, before it was politically expedient to say that they did not exist.

"Dan Cullimore"

> > (Florida Patriot) wrote:
> >
> > This is old news !
> > It's just Kerry trying anything and everything to get elected .
> > Ask the UN where the stuff went .
> >
> > Fred
> >
> I should stop being amazed at the ridiculous lengths the Bush-leaguers
> go to to stretch reality in their defence of this absurd little idiot.
> The U.N. knew exactly where these explosives were BEFORE the
> invasion, and so did our military--whose responsibility to safeguard
> them it became AFTER the invasion. The fact is we posted troops to
> protect the Oil Ministry, but not the ammo dumps.



How do you explain all the explosives that were safeguarded
if that's true. The absurdity is all yours, only an idiot would
think the UN had full knowledge of the weapons whereabouts
right up to the war. Saddam had a habit of moving his stash.
It would have taken about 38 trucks to haul the stuff out,
how did that happen during or after the occupation?


> And who the f*** cares if it is "old" news


People who are fairminded question the timing.



>--the real issue is it
> happened on Bush's watch. Those explosives are no doubt being used to
> ambush our troops NOW



That's based on what? I don't believe those types of explosives
can be used that way, what's your source?



>because the orders from above the field command
> staff said to protect the oil, not the weapons,


Again, where's your source that said weapons were not to be
guarded? The oil fields were/are a problem, they're crucial
to Iraq's future. What's your problem with that?


>well before the
> invasion occured (no one with combat experience would have tolerated
> such a misuse of military resources; it leaves our ground forces too
> vulnerable). Damn it, people--you wouldn't keep an employee who
> f***ed up this bad on the job! Why should we keep one in office?


Because his name isn't Kerry.

"Dan Cullimore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
> And who the f*** cares if it is "old" news--the real issue is it
> happened on Bush's watch. Those explosives are no doubt being used to
> ambush our troops NOW because the orders from above the field command
> staff said to protect the oil, not the weapons, well before the
> invasion occured (no one with combat experience would have tolerated
> such a misuse of military resources; it leaves our ground forces too
> vulnerable). Damn it, people--you wouldn't keep an employee who
> f***ed up this bad on the job! Why should we keep one in office?
>
> Dan

The information I have read indicates that the explosives went missing
BEFORE the invasion, when the UN was in control. So Bush is in charge of the
UN now??
Either way it is old news, and the left is just scrambling to toss some dirt
on Bush, because Kerry is even a bigger dolt than Bush!
I find it sad that these two men are the best we can come up with to run the
country!
If I were fishing, I would throw them both back!
Greg

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:40:36 -0500, Greg O <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq
> >> By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
> >
> > Funny how this is old news! The news article said it was missing since
the
> > invasion of Iraq. In reality it was missing BEFORE the invasion of Iraq.
At
> > that time it was under watch of the UN. Why is this Bush's fault?? These
> > explosives were in the news over a year ago!
>
> Ssssh, don't confuse the troll with actual facts. It's still Bush's fault
> that it was stolen before we went in there, somehow, I'm sure. Kerry
> would have gone and secured it, before he went in and didn't go in and
> secure it, before he would have secured it, ya know.
>

Oh! Sorry! Lost my head in the logic of it all!
Greg

"TeamCasa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Setting aside the controversy of when the explosives were stolen, I ask
the
> big question. Who sold them to the Iraqis in the first place? The French
> or Germans? They were the only two countries capable of producing the
HMX,
> RDX and PETN explosives beside the US.
>
> Dave
>


Yup! We probably sold it to them! I suppose that is Bush's fault to!
Our country's foreign policy changes like the wind. Hell, we helped put
Sadam in power, now later, we take him out!
Greg

"GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:40:36 -0500, "Greg O" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Funny how this is old news! The news article said it was missing since
the
> >invasion of Iraq. In reality it was missing BEFORE the invasion of Iraq.
>
>
> You were there, and saw that it was missing, eh ?
> The only people that agree with you are Cheney
> and some other Republican apparatchiks. The
> US military says that it never checked, because
> this administration refused to send enough troops
> over there to do things properly.
>

News articles dated well over a year ago are not good enough proof for you?
Greg

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "elmer swanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Greg O" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq
> > > > By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
> > > > 26 October 2004
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Funny how this is old news! The news article said it was missing since
> the
> > > invasion of Iraq. In reality it was missing BEFORE the invasion of
Iraq.
> At
> > > that time it was under watch of the UN.
> >
> > ".... The stockpile was found to be intact in March 2003, when United
> > Nations weapons inspectors checked it just days before the
> > American-led invasion. On April 10, one day after Saddam Hussein was
> > toppled, American troops visited the Al Qaqaa depot, not finding any
> > big cache of explosives but apparently not looking very closely
> > either.
> >
> > The troops' commander has explained that his unit was on its way to
> > Baghdad and had simply paused at Al Qaqaa to plan the next stage of
> > their advance...."
> >
> > So they're not sure if it disappeared before American occupation took
> > over. But it's serious because they're the the type of explosives
> > "that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988 and blasted
> > a hole in the American destroyer Cole in 2000."
>
> So, what you're saying is that as far as we know, the stuff was gone
before
> we got there? And just so we're clear, the last time anyone at the IAEA
> actually saw the explosives was January 2003. The IAEA visited the site
> again in March, but didn't actually look inside the storage bunkers
> containing the explosives. So, at least two months went by between the
last
> time they were seen and US troops arrived.
>
> todd
>
>

But surely they moved it the day of the invasion! It was not like they had
anything else going on.
Greg

"Dan Cullimore" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > On 26 Oct 2004 17:08:31 -0700, [email protected] (Florida
> > Patriot) wrote:
> >
> > This is old news !
> > It's just Kerry trying anything and everything to get elected .
> > Ask the UN where the stuff went .
> >
> > Fred
> >
> I should stop being amazed at the ridiculous lengths the Bush-leaguers
> go to to stretch reality in their defence of this absurd little idiot.
> The U.N. knew exactly where these explosives were BEFORE the
> invasion, and so did our military--whose responsibility to safeguard
> them it became AFTER the invasion. The fact is we posted troops to
> protect the Oil Ministry, but not the ammo dumps.
>
> And who the f*** cares if it is "old" news--the real issue is it
> happened on Bush's watch. Those explosives are no doubt being used to
> ambush our troops NOW because the orders from above the field command
> staff said to protect the oil, not the weapons, well before the
> invasion occured (no one with combat experience would have tolerated
> such a misuse of military resources; it leaves our ground forces too
> vulnerable). Damn it, people--you wouldn't keep an employee who
> f***ed up this bad on the job! Why should we keep one in office?
>
> Dan

The story continues to evolve. Perhaps before it is too late the truth will be told.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm

It becomes increasingly clear that the NYT and CBS are/were trying to influence the outcome of the election by releasing this story.

--
Al Reid

A government big enough to give you everything you want...
is big enough to take away everything you have."

"James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Swingman wrote:
> > "Al Reid" wrote in message
> >
> >>
> >>It becomes increasingly clear that the NYT and CBS are/were trying to
> >
> > influence the outcome of the election by releasing this story.
> >
>
> It becomes increasingly clear that Al things that no news story that ruffles the
> feathers of his favorite pols should be released at a time that could be
> inconvenient
> to them.
>
> JK
>
>

No, I don't things that, JK! I think that there should be some burden on news organizations to properly research and vet a story
before publishing it. Political hit pieces, timed so close to an election (CBS's intent was to wait until 10/31 to air it) without
proper backing and substantiation) are anti democratic. I don't care who the story hurt or favors, so long as it is complete,
accurate and fully researched.

--
Al Reid

A government big enough to give you everything you want...
is big enough to take away everything you have."

"Nate
> (Dan Cullimore) wrote in message
>
> > I should stop being amazed at the ridiculous lengths the Bush-leaguers
> > go to to stretch reality in their defence of this absurd little idiot.
> > The U.N. knew exactly where these explosives were BEFORE the
> > invasion, and so did our military--whose responsibility to safeguard
> > them it became AFTER the invasion. The fact is we posted troops to
> > protect the Oil Ministry, but not the ammo dumps.
>
> You should know better than to expect any kind of reasonable
> evaluation of this topic. Look, here comes Fletis Humplebacker and
> Dave Hinz already, and shortly the rest of the Bushie crew will be
> following.


Reasonable apparently means agreeing fully with you. That's reasonable!

>> Funny how this is old news! The news article said it was missing since
>> the
>> invasion of Iraq. In reality it was missing BEFORE the invasion of Iraq.
>> At
>> that time it was under watch of the UN. Why is this Bush's fault?? These
>> explosives were in the news over a year ago!
>
> Ssssh, don't confuse the troll with actual facts. It's still Bush's fault
> that it was stolen before we went in there, somehow, I'm sure. Kerry
> would have gone and secured it, before he went in and didn't go in and
> secure it, before he would have secured it, ya know.


Will you neocons ever learn to accept responsibility? You're always trying
to evade reality. Suck it up, be a man, and admit your fearless leader
screwed up big time.

http://www.kstptv5.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=64

Many more where that came from.

"JohnD"
> > He (Bush) is the only President in my lifetime that has put whats right over political gain.
>
> It is interesting what people will conclude...
>
> Bush was completely opposed to the formation of the Department of
> Homeland Security. He joined the backing of it only after it was
> clear it had overwhelming public support.
>
> The sweet no-bid to Haliburton - clearly a move motivated only by what
> is right.


Typical liberal trash. Did you oppose Clinton's no bid use of
Haliburton? Do you know why they do it? Bush opposed aspects
of the original proposal for the Homeland Security, not the
concept itself. But don't let facts confuse you.

"JohnD"
> Dear Fletis,
>
> You rely on a series of logical fallacies, as opposed to any fact, to
> make your point. Shall we parse?

> >Typical liberal trash.
>
> Ad hominem attack.


No, it's a metaphor.



> >Did you oppose Clinton's no bid use of Haliburton?


> Non-sequitir. My opposition to or support of actions alleged to be
> committed by Clinton have nothing to do with the question at hand.


Hypocrisy is always a consideration when questioning criticisms.



> Here is a more salient fact:

> "FBI agents began collecting documents tied to the contracts in
> government offices and were seeking to interview a top Army
> contracting officer. Bunnatine Greenhouse, the Army Corps of
> Engineers chief contracting officer, went public last week with
> allegations her agency unfairly awarded Halliburton subsidiary no-bid
> contracts. "


An allegation is a fact now? You are good at labeling but poor
on substance.



> >Bush opposed aspects
> > of the original proposal for the Homeland Security, not the
> > concept itself.


> Unsupported assertion. Here is what the Whitehouse said. "So,
> creating a Cabinet office doesn`t solve the problem. You still will
> have agencies within the federal government that have to be
> coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn`t
> solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]


You just supported it, didn't you realize that? It was eventually
created as a Federal Departmental Agency, not cabinet post.



> >But don't let facts confuse you.


> Personally, I don't find these facts confusing at all.


See above.

"Dan Cullimore"
> (DSA) wrote in message
> > >
> > > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048
> >
> > If you find 'em, why don't you stick 'em up your backside and light the
fuse?
> > Taz
>
> Taz, et al: How intellegent!
>
> Today the Washington Post, USA Today, MSNBC all carried stories about
> the missing explosives, indicating they did in all likelyhood
> disappear after the US invasion, after, in fact, troops looked at them
> (a Minnesota news crew filmed troops opening the bunkers and the
> barrels of explosives),


The footage didn't show that they were the explosives in question.
Did you not realize that? How does the Post account for civilians
hauling that kind of payload around undetected at the time in that
area ?



> and denials from the Pentagon that the
> Russians were involved (countering a specious report by The Washington
> Times yesterday and linked here above). The Post raises the issue of
> what else has not been secured, with specific reference to Saddam's
> nuclear weapons program equipment (looted AFTER the invasion).
>
> It is quite clear that the planning of this invasion was done by
> idiots; there does not appear to one credible justification for
> keeping this man and his administration in office, and aside from his
> bumbled execution of the war there are significant reasons to get rid
> of him and the crooks he has surrounded himself with.
>
> I'll say it again--we wouldn't keep an employee on the job who did
> this kind of work, why should we keep Bush?


The major in charge of demolitions just reported that he was there then
and destroyed some 200-250 tons of explosives. He thought the
report initially referred to something newly deemed missing, as we were
supposed to believe, but later realized it was his area they were talking
about. What's your evidence that the explosives in question were
stolen anyway? The idiots are those who claim their opinions are facts.

> Apparently you missed some of the just released satellite photos that
> showed
> several trucks lined up at that facility shortly before the war began.

And apparently you missed the report that the satellite photos were not of
the storage bunkers where the explosive were stored, but some other nearby
facility.

More lies and disinformation.

"GregP"
>"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote:
>
> >
> >You just supported it, didn't you realize that? It was eventually
> >created as a Federal Departmental Agency, not cabinet post.
> >
>
> The bottom line is Bush flip-flopped, creating SOMETHING
> after refusing to create ANYTHING.


More slander from the left. yawn.

"Dan Cullimore"
> "Fletis Humplebacker"
> > The footage didn't show that they were the explosives in question.
> > Did you not realize that? How does the Post account for civilians
> > hauling that kind of payload around undetected at the time in that
> > area ?
> >
> >
> Actually, the footage does show the weapons in question, those with
> U.N. seals on them.


What's your source?


> > The major in charge of demolitions just reported that he was there then
> > and destroyed some 200-250 tons of explosives. He thought the
> > report initially referred to something newly deemed missing, as we were
> > supposed to believe, but later realized it was his area they were talking
> > about. What's your evidence that the explosives in question were
> > stolen anyway? The idiots are those who claim their opinions are facts.
>
> The latest reports from the Pentagon indicate the missing explosives
> (identified by the U.N.) were not the ones destroyed by this Major
> (see various AP reports on Sunday).


What's their source? According to the Pentagon briefing they major
wasn't looking for any UN seals. Hindsight is 20/20.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/
"I did not see any IAEA seals at any of the locations we went into.
I was not looking for that," Pearson said.


>There are also questions being
> raised about some other 250,000 tons of known weapons material not
> accounted for. Granted, the WH states that some 400,000 tons have or
> will be destroyed, but they've said a lot of things that haven't been
> true.



Who raised the question and what's their expertise? It's these kind
of assertions that the left is famous for, blur the issue and hurl
endless charges around, maybe something will stick.


> Answer these questions: Do you think it appropriate for a sitting
> President to justify--with falsehoods, exagerations and
> innuendoes--sending U.S. troops to war? Don't give me some BS about
> the best available intellegence; there is ample evidence that the WH
> ignored reliable sources that read things differently and manipulated
> the analysis.


What's your source? Even Putin thought they had WMDs and they were
friends. Do you support anything or is the magnitude of the accusations
large enough to not need any?


> Can you answer this without changing the topic and asking about
> someone else lying? I'm asking about a SITTING president, someone
> with the power to kill. Is it right for a sitting President to lie
> about why he sent Americans to die?


He didn't lie as far as we know. That's your belief, not a fact, until you
demonstrate otherwise. When did he know they didn't have WMDs? Can
you answer without changing the topic?

> He didn't lie as far as we know. That's your belief, not a fact, until you
> demonstrate otherwise. When did he know they didn't have WMDs? Can
> you answer without changing the topic?


Three rounds of weapons inspections involving thousands of weapons
inspectors have all reported the same thing, that Iraq did not have any
nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Even the US inspection team
reported the same - no WMD's, nor any capability to manufacture any.

It's not a matter of "when did he know they didn't have WMD's". He knew all
along they didn't have WMD's. As Wolfowitz reported, the administration
chose to use WMD's as justification to invade Iraq because it was the only
reason everyone agreed on. Not because they had evidence of WMD's but
because they thought they could sell WMD's as a rationale.

Every single piece of "evidence" the administration presented as proof of
WMD's was false. Rice knew that the aluminum tubes were not suitable for use
in a centrifuge. Not only were there no 500 ton stockpiles of chemical and
biological agents, there was no evidence at all to back up this allegation.
That the balsa wood and duct-tape UAV's were able to deliver non-existent
chemical weapons all the way across the Atlantic to the eastern US seaboard
was just silly. The alleged mobile weapons labs were actually helium
generators for weather balloons, sold to the Iraqis by the Brits. Rumsfeld
was blowing smoke when he suggested he knew that the weapons were "in the
area in and around Tikrit". Bush, Cheney, and the CIA knew, as Wilson
previously reported, that the Niger documents were fake. And on and on and
on.

What I find interesting is that despite overwhelming evidence to the
contrary, people are still holding on to the idea of Iraq possessing WMD's,
links to Al Queda, etc.. It just goes to show you how effective the Bush
propaganda machine is and how gullible some people can be.

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Well let's think about that. befor the invasion it was inventoried and
> sealed by the IAEA. EIther Saddam Husseing moved it in anticipation
> of the invasion, or it was looted during or after the invasion, in
> either case the change to the status quo was becuase of the invasion.
>
> Regarding this and other dual use materials at other sites:
>
>
> http://www.unmovic.org/
>
>
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-693.pdf
>
>
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf
>
> http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/chrono_jan_04.shtml
>
> http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/IraqUNSC25102004.pdf
>
> http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/OctoberReport.pdf
>
> --
>
> FF

Another option is that it was removed and inventoried/destroyed by the US
military and the Iraqis and IAEA were unaware of this. To them it may have
appeared to have disappeared.

The truth is, at this point, no one is quite sure. It seems that everyone
is jumping to conclusions based on their current political bias.

--
Al

The Dems know that most people who vote Democratic are stupid and
uneduacated,
These people very rarely read past the headlines.

Don Armstrong

"Greg O" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq
>> By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
>> 26 October 2004
>>
>>
>
> Funny how this is old news! The news article said it was missing since the
> invasion of Iraq. In reality it was missing BEFORE the invasion of Iraq.
> At
> that time it was under watch of the UN. Why is this Bush's fault?? These
> explosives were in the news over a year ago!
> Left-wing spin, smoke screen on old news!
> Greg
>
>

hahaha, I can't help if the end of two of my fingers are busted and injured.

you know what I mean tho.

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> The Dems know that most people who vote Democratic are stupid and
>> uneduacated,
>> These people very rarely read past the headlines.
>
> Boy, you sure put those "uneduacated" "Dems" in their place.
>
>

What I get a kick out of is if we HADN'T gone it there would be 10 times
that amount in SH's hands, but now 'cause of the election he makes a big
deal out of this. The man is a goof...

--
-Jim
©¿©¬

If you want to reply by email its --> ryan at jimryan dot com
Please use BCC and lets all avoid spam
<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On 26 Oct 2004 17:08:31 -0700, [email protected] (Florida
> Patriot) wrote:
>
> This is old news !
> It's just Kerry trying anything and everything to get elected .
> Ask the UN where the stuff went .
>
> Fred
>
> >Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq
> >By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
> >26 October 2004
> >
> >In a massive pre-election embarrassment for the Bush administration,
> >nearly 350 tons of lethal explosives - which could be used to trigger
> >nuclear weapons - have vanished from a military facility in Iraq
> >supposed to have been guarded by US troops.
> >
> >Hardly had the disappearance come to light than John Kerry, the
> >Democratic presidential challenger, seized on the episode as proof
> >that George Bush was incapable of keeping America safe. The material
> >could already be in terrorist hands, he warned yesterday.
> >
> >According to The New York Times, which broke the story in a lengthy
> >front-page story, the missing stockpiles - some 350 tons in all - are
> >of HMX, RMX and PETN, extremely powerful, conventional explosives that
> >are used to blow up buildings, fill missile warheads or detonate
> >nuclear weapons. So devastating are they that just one pound of a
> >similar explosive was enough to destroy Pan Am flight 103 over
> >Lockerbie in December 1988. HMX, RMX, or explosives like them have
> >been used in car and apartment bombings in Moscow and Riyadh, Saudi
> >Arabia, in recent years.
> >
> >This was "one of the great blunders of the war," Mr Kerry said on the
> >campaign trail in the swing state of New Hampshire. A statement from
> >his campaign said the "unbelievable incompetence of this President and
> >this administration has put our troops at risk and this country at
> >greater risk", adding that Mr Bush, "who talks tough and brags about
> >making America safer, has once again failed to deliver",
> >
> >http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048
>

If you want to reply by email its --> ryan at jimryan dot com
Please use BCC and lets all avoid spam
"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "jtpr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > What I get a kick out of is if we HADN'T gone it there would be 10 times
> > that amount in SH's hands, but now 'cause of the election he makes a big
> > deal out of this. The man is a goof...
> >
> > --
> > -Jim
> > ©¿©¬
> >
>
> What I get a kick out of is the fact that with the WMD's that were never
found, it is the Left's position that they never existed.
> Whereas the "350 tons" of high explosives that went missing, probably in
the weeks before the invasion, did exists, even thought
> they were never found.
>
> BTW, here is a quote from Iraqi insurgent Abu Jalal on the US election:
'We've got to work to change the election, and we've done
> so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into the mud'...
>
> This makes it quite clear that the Iraqi Insurgency believes, perhaps
rightly so, that they have a better chance of winning their
> war against freedom with John Kerry at the helm.
> --
> Al Reid
>
>

To be clear...

"the man" I refer to is Kerry.

--
-Jim
©¿©¬

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:40:36 -0500, Greg O <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq
>> By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
>
> Funny how this is old news! The news article said it was missing since the
> invasion of Iraq. In reality it was missing BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. At
> that time it was under watch of the UN. Why is this Bush's fault?? These
> explosives were in the news over a year ago!

Ssssh, don't confuse the troll with actual facts. It's still Bush's fault
that it was stolen before we went in there, somehow, I'm sure. Kerry
would have gone and secured it, before he went in and didn't go in and
secure it, before he would have secured it, ya know.

On 27 Oct 2004 08:59:03 -0700, Dan Cullimore <[email protected]> wrote:

> Damn it, people--you wouldn't keep an employee who
> f***ed up this bad on the job! Why should we keep one in office?

So you're saying we should give a promotion to the guy who missed 74%
of the Senate Intelligence Committee meetings he was supposed to be at,
before he quit the group entirely, and now pretends that he cares about
the topic?

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:30:46 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2004 07:35:24 -0700, [email protected] (BowTie) wrote:
>
>>Exactly. NBC News is even saying the story is bunk.
>
> You're lying.

Cite, please, GregP. Again.

turns out of course that the stuff was misisng before we got there.

another attempt by the NYT and CBS to get Bush.

> He (Bush) is the only President in my lifetime that has put whats right over political gain.

It is interesting what people will conclude...

Bush was completely opposed to the formation of the Department of
Homeland Security. He joined the backing of it only after it was
clear it had overwhelming public support.

The sweet no-bid to Haliburton - clearly a move motivated only by what
is right.

Dear Fletis,

You rely on a series of logical fallacies, as opposed to any fact, to
make your point. Shall we parse?

>Typical liberal trash.

Ad hominem attack.

>Did you oppose Clinton's no bid use of Haliburton?

Non-sequitir. My opposition to or support of actions alleged to be
committed by Clinton have nothing to do with the question at hand.
Here is a more salient fact:

"FBI agents began collecting documents tied to the contracts in
government offices and were seeking to interview a top Army
contracting officer. Bunnatine Greenhouse, the Army Corps of
Engineers chief contracting officer, went public last week with
allegations her agency unfairly awarded Halliburton subsidiary no-bid
contracts. "

>Bush opposed aspects
> of the original proposal for the Homeland Security, not the
> concept itself.

Unsupported assertion. Here is what the Whitehouse said. "So,
creating a Cabinet office doesn`t solve the problem. You still will
have agencies within the federal government that have to be
coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn`t
solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

>But don't let facts confuse you.

Personally, I don't find these facts confusing at all.

"Greg O" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq
> > By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
> > 26 October 2004
> >
> >
>
> Funny how this is old news! The news article said it was missing since the
> invasion of Iraq. In reality it was missing BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. At
> that time it was under watch of the UN.

".... The stockpile was found to be intact in March 2003, when United
Nations weapons inspectors checked it just days before the
American-led invasion. On April 10, one day after Saddam Hussein was
toppled, American troops visited the Al Qaqaa depot, not finding any
big cache of explosives but apparently not looking very closely
either.

The troops' commander has explained that his unit was on its way to
Baghdad and had simply paused at Al Qaqaa to plan the next stage of
their advance...."

So they're not sure if it disappeared before American occupation took
over. But it's serious because they're the the type of explosives
"that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988 and blasted
a hole in the American destroyer Cole in 2000."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/politics/campaign/27CND-CAMP.html?ei=5094&en=b1b6e3220cd012a7&hp=&ex=1098936000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&position=

> Why is this Bush's fault?? These
> explosives were in the news over a year ago!
> Left-wing spin, smoke screen on old news!
> Greg

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "elmer swanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Greg O" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq
> > > > By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
> > > > 26 October 2004
> > >
> > > Funny how this is old news! The news article
> > > said it was missing since the
> > > invasion of Iraq. In reality it was missing
> > > BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. At
> > > that time it was under watch of the UN.
> >
> > ".... The stockpile was found to be intact in March 2003, when United
> > Nations weapons inspectors checked it just days before the
> > American-led invasion. On April 10, one day after Saddam Hussein was
> > toppled, American troops visited the Al Qaqaa depot, not finding any
> > big cache of explosives but apparently not looking very closely
> > either.
> >
> > The troops' commander has explained that his unit was on its way to
> > Baghdad and had simply paused at Al Qaqaa to plan the next stage of
> > their advance...."
> >
> > So they're not sure if it disappeared before American occupation took
> > over. But it's serious because they're the the type of explosives
> > "that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988 and blasted
> > a hole in the American destroyer Cole in 2000."
>
> So, what you're saying is that as far as we know, the stuff was gone before
> we got there?

No, I'm saying it as far as we know it was there "just days before the
American-led invasion." That the American troops visited the Al Qaqaa
depot on April 10, but were in a hurry to get to Baghdad and didn't
have time to look for the munitions. Now they're gone.
The Pentagon claims the explosives went missing in March or early
April but it's not just Kerry, the Iraqi government and the Times who
think it was looted after the invasion, the International Atomic
Energy Agency seems to think it's likely too.


`.... after the invasion (May 2003), the IAEA fretted in an internal
memo about the "explosives bonanza" terrorists might be reaping; in
May 2004, Iraqi officials say they warned CPA head L. Paul Bremer that
Al-Qaqaa had most likely been looted. The Times also reports that the
CIA listed the site as a "medium priority" on its list of 500
locations to be searched and secured....`

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108771/


The fact that troops weren't able to secure and survey the place until
late May can be blamed on what most of the chaos in Iraq can be blamed
on ....
* not enough troops
* no planning.

and that's why we need a COMPETENT president.

> And just so we're clear, the last time anyone at the IAEA
> actually saw the explosives was January 2003. The IAEA visited the site
> again in March, but didn't actually look inside the storage bunkers
> containing the explosives.

you sure?

".... IAEA personnel had visited Qaqaa on March 9 and found intact
seals on the bunkers where the HMX was stored. U.S. forces invaded
Iraq on March 19 ..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A816-2004Oct26?language=printer

> So, at least two months went by between the last
> time they were seen and US troops arrived.
>
> todd

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "elmer swanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "elmer swanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > "Greg O" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > > "Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq
> > > > > > By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
> > > > > > 26 October 2004
> > > > >
> > > > > Funny how this is old news! The news article
> > > > > said it was missing since the
> > > > > invasion of Iraq. In reality it was missing
> > > > > BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. At
> > > > > that time it was under watch of the UN.
> > > >
> > > > ".... The stockpile was found to be intact in March 2003, when United
> > > > Nations weapons inspectors checked it just days before the
> > > > American-led invasion. On April 10, one day after Saddam Hussein was
> > > > toppled, American troops visited the Al Qaqaa depot, not finding any
> > > > big cache of explosives but apparently not looking very closely
> > > > either.
> > > >
> > > > The troops' commander has explained that his unit was on its way to
> > > > Baghdad and had simply paused at Al Qaqaa to plan the next stage of
> > > > their advance...."
> > > >
> > > > So they're not sure if it disappeared before American occupation took
> > > > over. But it's serious because they're the the type of explosives
> > > > "that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988 and blasted
> > > > a hole in the American destroyer Cole in 2000."
> > >
> > > So, what you're saying is that as far as we know,
> > > the stuff was gone before we got there?
> >
> > No, I'm saying it as far as we know it was there "just days before the
> > American-led invasion."

Here's something else I'm saying (just found out about it today)

`.... A 5 EYEWITNESS [a TV station in Minnesota] NEWS crew was with
U.S. soldiers in Iraq as they discovered large amounts of unguarded
explosives just after the fall of Baghdad. This has become a sensitive
issue, since tons of explosives are reported missing from that area
and are possibly now in the hands of the enemy.

The news crew was with soldiers from the 101st Airborne division on
April 18, 2003 when they checked out the bunkers at or near Al-Qaqaa.
Inside those bunkers, they found a variety of explosives.


One type of explosives discovered were "boosters," which are used in
mining and quarrying. Experts who examined the video said the soldiers
also appeared to have found sticks of military-grade dynamite.

A box shown in the video caught one expert's eye. First, it bears the
words, "Al-Qaqaa State Establishment." Also, the box says it weighs
49.3 kilograms.....`

That would be enough to make hundreds of 300- to 400-pound car bombs
that experts say insurgents in Iraq are assembling.

"These pictures are pretty dramatic proof that the high explosives
were there after Baghdad fell," physicist David Albright.

Barrels found in one bunker were marked "1.1 D," indicating they
contained a high explosive.

It wasn't quantity that impressed Albright, but quality. One of the
hundreds of barrels in one bunker is marked "1.1 D,' which is an
indicator of a high explosive.

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3748.html?cat=1
(they have a link to the video too.)

In conclusion,
* not enough troops
* no plan for the day after.

We need a COMPETENT president in these dangerous times.


> > That the American troops visited the Al Qaqaa
> > depot on April 10, but were in a hurry to get to Baghdad and didn't
> > have time to look for the munitions. Now they're gone.
> > The Pentagon claims the explosives went missing in March or early
> > April but it's not just Kerry, the Iraqi government and the Times who
> > think it was looted after the invasion, the International Atomic
> > Energy Agency seems to think it's likely too.
> >
> >
> > `.... after the invasion (May 2003), the IAEA fretted in an internal
> > memo about the "explosives bonanza" terrorists might be reaping; in
> > May 2004, Iraqi officials say they warned CPA head L. Paul Bremer that
> > Al-Qaqaa had most likely been looted. The Times also reports that the
> > CIA listed the site as a "medium priority" on its list of 500
> > locations to be searched and secured....`
> >
> > http://slate.msn.com/id/2108771/
> >
> >
> > The fact that troops weren't able to secure and survey the place until
> > late May can be blamed on what most of the chaos in Iraq can be blamed
> > on ....
> > * not enough troops
> > * no planning.
> >
> > and that's why we need a COMPETENT president.
> >
> > > And just so we're clear, the last time anyone at the IAEA
> > > actually saw the explosives was January 2003. The IAEA visited the site
> > > again in March, but didn't actually look inside the storage bunkers
> > > containing the explosives.
> >
> > you sure?
> >
> > ".... IAEA personnel had visited Qaqaa on March 9 and found intact
> > seals on the bunkers where the HMX was stored. U.S. forces invaded
> > Iraq on March 19 ..."
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A816-2004Oct26?language=printer
>
> I missed the part of the story where the IAEA looked inside the storage
> bunkers. When I read the story, it says that they found the seals intact
> and assumed that the explosives were inside. Even if the explosives were
> there, by your own account, there were at least 10 days to remove it before
> US forces arrived in Iraq.
>
> todd

On 26 Oct 2004 17:08:31 -0700, [email protected] (Florida
Patriot) wrote:

This is old news !
It's just Kerry trying anything and everything to get elected .
Ask the UN where the stuff went .

Fred

>Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq
>By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
>26 October 2004
>
>In a massive pre-election embarrassment for the Bush administration,
>nearly 350 tons of lethal explosives - which could be used to trigger
>nuclear weapons - have vanished from a military facility in Iraq
>supposed to have been guarded by US troops.
>
>Hardly had the disappearance come to light than John Kerry, the
>Democratic presidential challenger, seized on the episode as proof
>that George Bush was incapable of keeping America safe. The material
>could already be in terrorist hands, he warned yesterday.
>
>According to The New York Times, which broke the story in a lengthy
>front-page story, the missing stockpiles - some 350 tons in all - are
>of HMX, RMX and PETN, extremely powerful, conventional explosives that
>are used to blow up buildings, fill missile warheads or detonate
>nuclear weapons. So devastating are they that just one pound of a
>similar explosive was enough to destroy Pan Am flight 103 over
>Lockerbie in December 1988. HMX, RMX, or explosives like them have
>been used in car and apartment bombings in Moscow and Riyadh, Saudi
>Arabia, in recent years.
>
>This was "one of the great blunders of the war," Mr Kerry said on the
>campaign trail in the swing state of New Hampshire. A statement from
>his campaign said the "unbelievable incompetence of this President and
>this administration has put our troops at risk and this country at
>greater risk", adding that Mr Bush, "who talks tough and brags about
>making America safer, has once again failed to deliver",
>
>http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048

Setting aside the controversy of when the explosives were stolen, I ask the
big question. Who sold them to the Iraqis in the first place? The French
or Germans? They were the only two countries capable of producing the HMX,
RDX and PETN explosives beside the US.

Dave



"Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq
> By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
> 26 October 2004
>
> In a massive pre-election embarrassment for the Bush administration,
> nearly 350 tons of lethal explosives - which could be used to trigger
> nuclear weapons - have vanished from a military facility in Iraq
> supposed to have been guarded by US troops.
>
> Hardly had the disappearance come to light than John Kerry, the
> Democratic presidential challenger, seized on the episode as proof
> that George Bush was incapable of keeping America safe. The material
> could already be in terrorist hands, he warned yesterday.
>
> According to The New York Times, which broke the story in a lengthy
> front-page story, the missing stockpiles - some 350 tons in all - are
> of HMX, RMX and PETN, extremely powerful, conventional explosives that
> are used to blow up buildings, fill missile warheads or detonate
> nuclear weapons. So devastating are they that just one pound of a
> similar explosive was enough to destroy Pan Am flight 103 over
> Lockerbie in December 1988. HMX, RMX, or explosives like them have
> been used in car and apartment bombings in Moscow and Riyadh, Saudi
> Arabia, in recent years.
>
> This was "one of the great blunders of the war," Mr Kerry said on the
> campaign trail in the swing state of New Hampshire. A statement from
> his campaign said the "unbelievable incompetence of this President and
> this administration has put our troops at risk and this country at
> greater risk", adding that Mr Bush, "who talks tough and brags about
> making America safer, has once again failed to deliver",
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048

There was a day when I would have taken exception to calling anybody
uneducated. But since Terry Mc. has run the DNC, the only explanation for those
supporting Kerry must either be uneducated, never search for facts and just
believe the media, or can't read and like donkeys.

10 out of 10 terrorists agree, anybody but Bush.

Some want to elect a US President that effectively committed treason when he
testified against the US Military in front of Congress.
Some want to elect a US President that only got an Honorable discharge by
political muster decades after his duty was over.
Some want to elect a US President that admitted committing war crimes in front
of Congress.

Your either pro Democracy or pro Kerry, can't be both
You either support our troops or support Kerry, can't be both
You either support freedom or support Kerry, can't be both

You know there is one pissed of guy that want Bush out of office, he lost his
job, his home and his sons in the Iraq war...you can bet your behind Saddam is
supporting Kerry.

You know that Al Quaida supports Kerry

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

> "Al Reid"
> > What Bombshell? A recycled and misleading report from April 2003?
> >
> > The reality of the situation is that the explosives either never existed
> of were moved prior to the war. If the former, it shows
> > the UN weapon inspectors incompetence, since they stated that they were
> there. If the latter, it shows that large quantities of
> > conventional and WMD's were moved out of Iraq prior to the start of major
> combat.
> >
> > It does, however, clearly show that the major newsprint and network news
> organizations are hell bent on effecting the outcome of the
> > election, even if they have to invent or recycle & embellish old stories
> to have the desired effect. CBS's 60 Minutes was all
> > prepared to air this discredited and biased anti-Bush hit piece on October
> 31st, just 36 hours before the start of the election.
>
> There also seems to be some U.N. collution in the story's release. They
> just recently concluded their report. Could it be they prefer Kerry I
> wonder?

"GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:07:01 -0700, "TeamCasa" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Setting aside the controversy of when the explosives were stolen, I ask
>>the
>>big question. Who sold them to the Iraqis in the first place? The French
>>or Germans? They were the only two countries capable of producing the
>>HMX,
>>RDX and PETN explosives beside the US.
>
>
> Probably Haliburton.


Nope, they wanted to much for them!

ray wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:51:30 -0500, Phil wrote:
>
> > Your either pro Democracy or pro Kerry, can't be both
> > You either support our troops or support Kerry, can't be both
> > You either support freedom or support Kerry, can't be both
>
> What about the troops who plan to vote for Kerry? How do they fit into
> your formula.

They don't either don't understand, don't care, young and inexperienced or are
gullible.

> You do realize, I hope, that you're slandering half of your
> fellow Americans at a time in our nation when unity is far more important
> than petty politics.

Facts aren't slander. There are facts and there are lies. Just check the
facts, don't believe the lies, if you do that, you will find the liers are the
one dividing this country.

> Your sentiments are deeply unAmerican. You should be
> ashamed.

So how does supporting the US military, Democracy and freedom turn into
un-American?


> You better hope the Founding Fathers don't rise from their graves
> and slap some sense into you.

Exactly, our founding fathers would rise from their graves if they saw the BS
Kerry, NYT, CBS, ABC and the DNC spewed.


>
>
> That said, I believe Bush will be re-elected. However, what will you do
> if Kerry wins? Will you renounce your citizenship rather than give your
> support to the new President?

If Kerry wins and commits to win in Iraq, fight terrorism, fund our troops
needs, be truthful and keep government off my back and our employers back.
I'll back him in a heartbeat. If he tries to use mine and my kids taxes to pay
for a government healthcare system, I'll work against him. Kerry blames Bush
for jobs leaving this country. Prime example, flu vacinne. Hilary got a
government run immunization program passed. Doesn't sound bad on the surface,
but at the government fixed price, US manufactures stopped producing, those
jobs went over seas, it left us reliant on a couple of overseas manufacturers.
Oh, guess what else, those manufacturers are building overseas plants. Why,
because of US government requirements making it cost prohibitive to build over
here.
If Bush was running as a Democrat, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. If Kerry
were to run as a Republican, I wouldn't vote for him with a gun to my head.
How about you?

I voted against Bush Sr. and I made a HUGE mistake! I voted for GW Bush, and
there are some things I don't agree with him on, but I have never been more
impressed by a man. He has run this country on principles and values, not
what feels good at the time. He is the only President in my lifetime that has
put whats right over political gain.
On the other hand Kerry has said anything to anyone to get a vote. It's well
documented, irrefutable. His voting record in the Senate, his congressional
testimony on returning from Vietnam where he admitted to committing he
committing war crimes in Vietnam are documented actions that I don't agree
with or want in a president, neither did our founding fathers.

We used to cringe at the USSR and TASS as their agent. Now we have the TASS
equivalent in ABC, CBS and NBC and people are asleep, don't check facts,
lulled into not separating FACTS and truth from political and social bias. I
believe TASS was the lesser of the two evils.

Look at the subject of this thread, it's already been exposed for what it is,
politics and news media bias, not fact. Is Kerry denoucing it? No he's
playing politics for his gain. A major newspaper yesterday had a very similar
heading, LARGE Print front page, at the end of the article on the last page it
mentioned that the initial information was reported in April 2003 and there
was no evidence the explosives were there when we went into Iraq. There is
only one reason to do that, try to influence the election for a Kerry win.

Phil

Phil said:
> Facts aren't slander. There are facts and there are lies. Just check the
> facts, don't believe the lies, if you do that, you will find the liers are
> the
> one dividing this country.

"Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable."
Mark Twain

Ray said:
>You better hope the Founding Fathers don't rise from their graves
>and slap some sense into you.

"The proposition that the people are the best keepers of their own liberties
is not true. They are the worst conceivable, they are no keepers at all;
they can neither judge, act, think, or will, as a political body."
John Adams US President, diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)

A fact that is hard to get around is that all of the information we get on
Iraq and the war come from the military/government or the press. Neither
have great track records in reporting the un-varnished (woodworking
reference) truth.

As history is always written by the winner so we will have to wait for the
real truth later. All we can do now is trust. The question is who do you
trust? Kerry's record is already part of history and is not to good as far
as I'm concerned. George's is being written now.

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> Phil <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > Kerry blames Bush
> > for jobs leaving this country. Prime example, flu vacinne. Hilary got a
> > government run immunization program passed. Doesn't sound bad on the surface,
> > but at the government fixed price, US manufactures stopped producing, those
> > jobs went over seas, it left us reliant on a couple of overseas manufacturers.
> > ...
>
> If you ask Bush why there is a vaccine shortage he says it is because the
> Congress wouldn't pass tort reform so the liability insurance for the
> pharmaceutical companies is too high.
>
> I do not see how lowering the costs for manufacturing the vaccine would
> encourage the production of a larger surplus. With reduced liability
> the companies could maintain the same margin and charge less for the
> vaccine. Cetainly that would be a benefit to the consumer. But it still
> wold not insure a surplus because producing a surplus would RAISE their
> costs again.
>

The government didn't reduce the manufacturing cost! They set a low price on what
they would pay to buy it. This is a huge difference.
I'm going to explain it again:
These are ficticious numbers just for illustration, I'm just explaining the
economics of what happened. Pre Hillary bill, flu vaccine in the private sector was
going for $100 a dose. Hillary's bill fixed the government price at $80 a dose.
The fed went from a small consumer to a large consumer of the vaccine. Taking 20%
of the profit margin, and taking the feds buying up 60% of the produced vaccine, cut
the margin so thin and combined with the cost of liability for the vaccine made it
nonprofitable for US manfacturers to continue to manufacture. Almost a decade after
her bill, there are currently only a couple of manufacturers and they are not in the
US. When one had a quality problem, that cut available supply in half.

Any decent business will tell you NO business is better than bad business.
Companies don't exist to lose money. So those US jobs left the country, simple as
that.

Bush's statement is correct, in that product liability especially in the medical and
pharmaceutical industry is so costly, manufactureres and dr.s get out of the
unprofitable aspect of the business. Would you go to work for $7/hr and turn around
and pay a babysitter $8/hr? Especially if the babysitter had a history of sueing?

->Tort reform would have done nothing to prevetn the vaccine shortage.
->That is typical of Bushlit, take a real problem and pretend that it
->can be solved or could have been solved by some other part of
->his agenda.

You need to brush up on your understanding of economics and business.

I live in an area where two economic truth's have manifested itself to cause issues.

1. A major inner city retail mall closed because insurance costs became so
expensive the businesses couldn't afford it. Why, because frivilous lawsuits were
getting large sums of money because the jury's were made up of constituants that
didn't see the correlation between jury awards and their jobs.

2. a few miles away in a depressed economic area, two hospitals have no surgeons,
because the Dr's left because of the same principal. Their insurance got so high,
it made no sense to go to work.

Here is the Vaccine INFO below:

Clinton's Child Immunization Proposal

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release April 1, 1993
"Comprehensive Child Immunization Act of 1993" FACT SHEET

The President today sent to the Congress the "Comprehensive Child Immunization Act
of 1993". This bill is the first legislative proposal he has sent to the Congress
for consideration and enactment. When enacted, the bill will assure that all
children in the United States are protected against vaccine-preventable infectious
diseases
by their second birthday. This legislation inaugurates a new collaborative
partnership among parents and guardians; health care providers; vaccine
manufacturers; and
Federal, State, and local governments to protect our children from the deadly
onslaught of infectious diseases.

This legislation would:

beginning in fiscal year 1995, authorize the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to purchase and provide childhood vaccines in quantities sufficient to
meet the immunization needs of children in the United States;

establish a national immunization tracking system, through grants to the States
to establish State immunization registries, to ensure that children receive their
scheduled immunizations at the earliest appropriate age;

ensure that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, an essential link
in our Nation's immunization system, remains operational; and

continue vaccine infrastructure enhancements started in my economic stimulus
program.



Background

Immunizations represent one of the most cost-effective means of disease prevention.
Although Federal support for childhood immunization has been in existence
since 1962, the full potential of immunizations remains to be achieved.

Approximately 80 percent of vaccine doses should be received before the second
birthday in order to protect children during their most vulnerable periods.
Unfortunately, many children do not receive their basic immunizations by that time.
In fact, in some inner city areas as few as 10 percent of 2-year olds have received
a complete series. This low level of immunizations has been reflected in recent
years in outbreaks of measles among un-immunized preschool children. The
resurgence of measles in 1989 through 1991 afflicted over 55,000 people and cost the
country $20 million in avoidable hospital costs alone.

In 1982, the recommended vaccine schedule cost $6.69 in the public sector and $23.29
in the private sector. By 1992, the total cost for fully immunizing a child was
$122.28 in the public sector and $244.10 in the private sector.

"Don Armstrong" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Dems know that most people who vote Democratic are stupid and
> uneduacated,

Yeah, that's what they are, uneduacated! And they haven't learnt much,
neither!

On 27 Oct 2004 07:35:24 -0700, [email protected] (BowTie) wrote:

>Exactly. NBC News is even saying the story is bunk.

You're lying.

>This is just like what the left attempted with Clarence Thomas. Or
>perhaps the Bush, U2, Iran hostage negotiation charges. "The
>seriousness of the charges is more important than the nature of the
>evidence.". These people will stop at nothing to sieze power. Kerry
>and Edwards would sell their mothers to win Ohio and Florida and
>Wisconsin.
>

The reality is Bush and his coterie do not have the courage to
stand behind their bad decisions, choosing to hide behind our
troops, pretending it was their call.

"The senator is making wild charges about missing explosives," said
Bush. "Think about that: The senator is denigrating the action of our
troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts."

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:04:41 -0500, "Don Armstrong"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The Dems know that most people who vote Democratic are stupid and
>uneduacated,
>These people very rarely read past the headlines.
>
>Don Armstrong
>
So, I see that you're an eduacated Republican?

[email protected] (Dan Cullimore) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> I should stop being amazed at the ridiculous lengths the Bush-leaguers
> go to to stretch reality in their defence of this absurd little idiot.
> The U.N. knew exactly where these explosives were BEFORE the
> invasion, and so did our military--whose responsibility to safeguard
> them it became AFTER the invasion. The fact is we posted troops to
> protect the Oil Ministry, but not the ammo dumps.

You should know better than to expect any kind of reasonable
evaluation of this topic. Look, here comes Fletis Humplebacker and
Dave Hinz already, and shortly the rest of the Bushie crew will be
following.

"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Nate
> > (Dan Cullimore) wrote in message
> >
> > > I should stop being amazed at the ridiculous lengths the Bush-leaguers
> > > go to to stretch reality in their defence of this absurd little idiot.
> > > The U.N. knew exactly where these explosives were BEFORE the
> > > invasion, and so did our military--whose responsibility to safeguard
> > > them it became AFTER the invasion. The fact is we posted troops to
> > > protect the Oil Ministry, but not the ammo dumps.
> >
> > You should know better than to expect any kind of reasonable
> > evaluation of this topic. Look, here comes Fletis Humplebacker and
> > Dave Hinz already, and shortly the rest of the Bushie crew will be
> > following.
>
> Reasonable apparently means agreeing fully with you. That's reasonable!

(yawn) Goodbye, Fletis. No time to waste on your nonsense this week.

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
...
> So, what you're saying is that as far as we know, the stuff was gone before
> we got there? And just so we're clear, the last time anyone at the IAEA
> actually saw the explosives was January 2003. The IAEA visited the site
> again in March, but didn't actually look inside the storage bunkers
> containing the explosives. So, at least two months went by between the last
> time they were seen and US troops arrived.

Oops. From today's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/politics/29bomb.html?hp&ex=1099022400&en=3386d85551d694e2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Video Shows G.I.'s at Weapon Cache

A videotape made by a television crew with American troops when they
opened bunkers at a sprawling Iraqi munitions complex south of Baghdad
shows a huge supply of explosives still there nine days after the fall
of Saddam Hussein, apparently including some sealed earlier by the
International Atomic Energy Agency.

The tape, broadcast on Wednesday night by the ABC affiliate in
Minneapolis, appeared to confirm a warning given earlier this month to
the agency by Iraqi officials, who said that hundreds of tons of
high-grade explosives, powerful enough to bring down buildings or
detonate nuclear weapons, had vanished from the site after the
invasion of Iraq.

[email protected] (BowTie) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> More Democratic vandalism !
>
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1027042harris1.html
>
> http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/news-article.aspx?storyid=26517

http://vote2004.eriposte.com/

What's this got to do with woodworking? GD yahoos


"Dan Cullimore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> "Dan Cullimore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > [email protected] wrote in message
>> > news:<[email protected]>...
>> > > On 26 Oct 2004 17:08:31 -0700, [email protected] (Florida
>> > > Patriot) wrote:
>> > >
>> > > This is old news !
>> > > It's just Kerry trying anything and everything to get elected .
>> > > Ask the UN where the stuff went .
>> > >
>> > > Fred
>> > >
>> > I should stop being amazed at the ridiculous lengths the Bush-leaguers
>> > go to to stretch reality in their defence of this absurd little idiot.
>> > The U.N. knew exactly where these explosives were BEFORE the
>> > invasion, and so did our military--whose responsibility to safeguard
>> > them it became AFTER the invasion. The fact is we posted troops to
>> > protect the Oil Ministry, but not the ammo dumps.
>> >
>> > And who the f*** cares if it is "old" news--the real issue is it
>> > happened on Bush's watch. Those explosives are no doubt being used to
>> > ambush our troops NOW because the orders from above the field command
>> > staff said to protect the oil, not the weapons, well before the
>> > invasion occured (no one with combat experience would have tolerated
>> > such a misuse of military resources; it leaves our ground forces too
>> > vulnerable). Damn it, people--you wouldn't keep an employee who
>> > f***ed up this bad on the job! Why should we keep one in office?
>> >
>> > Dan
>>
>> The story continues to evolve. Perhaps before it is too late the truth
>> will be told.
>>
>> http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1
>>
>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm
>>
>> It becomes increasingly clear that the NYT and CBS are/were trying to
>> influence the outcome of the election by releasing this story.
>
> If these revelations are true, we have more to worry about than the
> terrorists. What is not clear is that the NYT or CBS are/were trying
> to influence the election. They reported on a letter by the Iraqi
> government which was dated Oct. 10. That other sources have found
> other information only confirms how news gathering and reporting
> works--time reveals more of the facts. If I was wrong about my
> assertions regarding Bush's handling of these weapons (since they may
> not have been there to begin with), then I apologize.
> However, from my perspective this only confirms my belief that we need
> someone who is not a unilateralist when it comes to foreign policy.
> All of George's being such a buddy with Vladimir (he did seem to be
> quite chummy with Putin in the debate, ya' know) didn't help us one
> bit.
>
> Dan

"Al Reid" wrote in message
>
> The story continues to evolve. Perhaps before it is too late the truth
will be told.
>
> http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1
>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm
>
> It becomes increasingly clear that the NYT and CBS are/were trying to
influence the outcome of the election by releasing this story.

... and all along I thought that Islamic fundamentalism was our biggest
enemy.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04

"elmer swanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Greg O" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq
> > > By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
> > > 26 October 2004
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Funny how this is old news! The news article said it was missing since
the
> > invasion of Iraq. In reality it was missing BEFORE the invasion of Iraq.
At
> > that time it was under watch of the UN.
>
> ".... The stockpile was found to be intact in March 2003, when United
> Nations weapons inspectors checked it just days before the
> American-led invasion. On April 10, one day after Saddam Hussein was
> toppled, American troops visited the Al Qaqaa depot, not finding any
> big cache of explosives but apparently not looking very closely
> either.
>
> The troops' commander has explained that his unit was on its way to
> Baghdad and had simply paused at Al Qaqaa to plan the next stage of
> their advance...."
>
> So they're not sure if it disappeared before American occupation took
> over. But it's serious because they're the the type of explosives
> "that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988 and blasted
> a hole in the American destroyer Cole in 2000."

So, what you're saying is that as far as we know, the stuff was gone before
we got there? And just so we're clear, the last time anyone at the IAEA
actually saw the explosives was January 2003. The IAEA visited the site
again in March, but didn't actually look inside the storage bunkers
containing the explosives. So, at least two months went by between the last
time they were seen and US troops arrived.

todd

"Dan Cullimore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> David Freddoso, an editor with "Human Events, The National
> Conservative Weekly", in a piece critical of the apparant lack of
> congressional oversight of intellegence (and related to Sen. Kerry's
> attendance at Senate Intellegence Committee open meetings) wrote:
> "Members of nearly all other Senate committees routinely skip open
> meetings, or make only token appearances so that their presence is
> recorded." (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4734)
> John Kerry's record of attendance at open meetings is NOT a valid
> objection to his presidential worthiness unless, when compared to
> other senators' attendance at other open meetings, he shows unusual
> laxity. This has not been shown. The argument is only a 'straw man'
> tactic.

Kerry could clear all of this up by requesting that his attendance at
closed-door meetings be released. I wonder why he refuses to?

> On the contrary, one should ask why we should return our vacationing
> Texan (I've seen figures of as much as 40% of his Presidency spent "on
> vacation") to four more years "on the lam" at taxpayers' expense.

If you think that the President of the United States, no matter who he is,
gets what you and I would consider a "vacation", you're suffering from
cranial rectal inversion.

> Dan

todd

I don't think Waldo has been found either...

Is that Bush's fault too???

On 29 Oct 2004 09:05:36 -0700, Dan Cullimore <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] (DSA) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> >
>> > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048
>>
>> If you find 'em, why don't you stick 'em up your backside and light the fuse?
>> Taz
>
> Taz, et al: How intellegent!
>
> Today the Washington Post, USA Today, MSNBC all carried stories about
> the missing explosives, indicating they did in all likelyhood
> disappear after the US invasion, after, in fact, troops looked at them
> (a Minnesota news crew filmed troops opening the bunkers and the
> barrels of explosives), and denials from the Pentagon that the

(snippage)

and now the Major who supervised the removal of the explosives from the
site speaks:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137017,00.html

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Al Reid" wrote in message
> > >
> > > The story continues to evolve. Perhaps before it is too late the
truth
> > will be told.
> > >
> > > http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1
> > >
> > > http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm
> > >
> > > It becomes increasingly clear that the NYT and CBS are/were trying to
> > influence the outcome of the election by releasing this story.
> >
> > ... and all along I thought that Islamic fundamentalism was our biggest
> > enemy.
>
> I thought that fundamentalism was our biggest enemy.
>
> --
>
> FF

Yea Fred. Damned those radical left-wing liberal fundamentalists<g>

Al

Exactly. NBC News is even saying the story is bunk.

This is just like what the left attempted with Clarence Thomas. Or
perhaps the Bush, U2, Iran hostage negotiation charges. "The
seriousness of the charges is more important than the nature of the
evidence.". These people will stop at nothing to sieze power. Kerry
and Edwards would sell their mothers to win Ohio and Florida and
Wisconsin.

Pathetic.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++

"Greg O" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq
> > By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
> > 26 October 2004
> >
> >
>
> Funny how this is old news! The news article said it was missing since the
> invasion of Iraq. In reality it was missing BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. At
> that time it was under watch of the UN. Why is this Bush's fault?? These
> explosives were in the news over a year ago!
> Left-wing spin, smoke screen on old news!
> Greg

More Democratic vandalism !

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1027042harris1.html

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/news-article.aspx?storyid=26517

Ken

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 26 Oct 2004 17:08:31 -0700, [email protected] (Florida
> Patriot) wrote:
>
> This is old news !
> It's just Kerry trying anything and everything to get elected .
> Ask the UN where the stuff went .
>
> Fred
>
I should stop being amazed at the ridiculous lengths the Bush-leaguers
go to to stretch reality in their defence of this absurd little idiot.
The U.N. knew exactly where these explosives were BEFORE the
invasion, and so did our military--whose responsibility to safeguard
them it became AFTER the invasion. The fact is we posted troops to
protect the Oil Ministry, but not the ammo dumps.

And who the f*** cares if it is "old" news--the real issue is it
happened on Bush's watch. Those explosives are no doubt being used to
ambush our troops NOW because the orders from above the field command
staff said to protect the oil, not the weapons, well before the
invasion occured (no one with combat experience would have tolerated
such a misuse of military resources; it leaves our ground forces too
vulnerable). Damn it, people--you wouldn't keep an employee who
f***ed up this bad on the job! Why should we keep one in office?

Dan

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 27 Oct 2004 08:59:03 -0700, Dan Cullimore <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Damn it, people--you wouldn't keep an employee who
> > f***ed up this bad on the job! Why should we keep one in office?
>
> So you're saying we should give a promotion to the guy who missed 74%
> of the Senate Intelligence Committee meetings he was supposed to be at,
> before he quit the group entirely, and now pretends that he cares about
> the topic?

David Freddoso, an editor with "Human Events, The National
Conservative Weekly", in a piece critical of the apparant lack of
congressional oversight of intellegence (and related to Sen. Kerry's
attendance at Senate Intellegence Committee open meetings) wrote:
"Members of nearly all other Senate committees routinely skip open
meetings, or make only token appearances so that their presence is
recorded." (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4734)
John Kerry's record of attendance at open meetings is NOT a valid
objection to his presidential worthiness unless, when compared to
other senators' attendance at other open meetings, he shows unusual
laxity. This has not been shown. The argument is only a 'straw man'
tactic.

On the contrary, one should ask why we should return our vacationing
Texan (I've seen figures of as much as 40% of his Presidency spent "on
vacation") to four more years "on the lam" at taxpayers' expense.

Dan

"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> babbled in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> How do you explain all the explosives that were safeguarded
> if that's true. The absurdity is all yours, only an idiot would
> think the UN had full knowledge of the weapons whereabouts
> right up to the war. >

We don't know about other "safeguarded explosives"; there could be
many ammo, ordinance and explosive dumps left unguarded. We just
don't know. We do know what the U.N. documented at this site, and it
is not there.

> Saddam had a habit of moving his stash.
> It would have taken about 38 trucks to haul the stuff out,
> how did that happen during or after the occupation?

And we wouldn't have noticed with all the fly-overs, satelite imaging,
etc. we were doing? I find that incredible.

> > And who the f*** cares if it is "old" news
>
>
> People who are fairminded question the timing.
>
The "timing" of what--the presentation of the 'news'? This is a
political year and the last I knew all the major news outlets in this
country are businesses--do you know a better way to help the bottom
line of news organizations than by encouraging controversy and thereby
prompting people to buy newspapers or watch TV news? Simply
capitalism and free enterprise working well.
>
> >--the real issue is it
> > happened on Bush's watch. Those explosives are no doubt being used to
> > ambush our troops NOW
>
>
>
> That's based on what? I don't believe those types of explosives
> can be used that way, what's your source?
>

Given that these are the explosives used to blow up airplanes over
Scotland it wouldn't take much to rig a bomb to set on the roadside in
wait of a patrol or convoy. A bit of plastic explosive, some simple
RC electronics and a battery--you've got a bomb. Literally, this
isn't rocket science.

>
> >because the orders from above the field command
> > staff said to protect the oil, not the weapons,
>
>
> Again, where's your source that said weapons were not to be
> guarded? The oil fields were/are a problem, they're crucial
> to Iraq's future. What's your problem with that?
>
Again, no source. But simple battlefield logic would dictate
searching for and guarding known stockpiles of high explosives. I,
too, believe that the oil fields are critical to Iraq's future, but
also to Halliburton's. And our VP still gets deferred compensation
from that company (and since he admits having no further political
ambitions no doubt hopes to return to the company fold, albeit as a
far wealthier man). And let's not forget our favorite oilman, the
pres.

> >well before the
> > invasion occured (no one with combat experience would have tolerated
> > such a misuse of military resources; it leaves our ground forces too
> > vulnerable). Damn it, people--you wouldn't keep an employee who
> > f***ed up this bad on the job! Why should we keep one in office?
>
>
> Because his name isn't Kerry.

Can you spell "r-e-d i-n-k"? It's the deficits, stupid! This
war--the "wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time"--is going
to bankrupt this country. Your grandchildren's grandchildren will be
paying for it if the tax breaks become permanent. Beyond that, I
think we've got a bunch of self-rightous crooks in the WH--we'll catch
'em (oil-and-no-bid-contract-money in hand) with diligence (the price
of freedom, threats to which don't always come from outside).

Dan

"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Dan Cullimore" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > [email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > On 26 Oct 2004 17:08:31 -0700, [email protected] (Florida
> > > Patriot) wrote:
> > >
> > > This is old news !
> > > It's just Kerry trying anything and everything to get elected .
> > > Ask the UN where the stuff went .
> > >
> > > Fred
> > >
> > I should stop being amazed at the ridiculous lengths the Bush-leaguers
> > go to to stretch reality in their defence of this absurd little idiot.
> > The U.N. knew exactly where these explosives were BEFORE the
> > invasion, and so did our military--whose responsibility to safeguard
> > them it became AFTER the invasion. The fact is we posted troops to
> > protect the Oil Ministry, but not the ammo dumps.
> >
> > And who the f*** cares if it is "old" news--the real issue is it
> > happened on Bush's watch. Those explosives are no doubt being used to
> > ambush our troops NOW because the orders from above the field command
> > staff said to protect the oil, not the weapons, well before the
> > invasion occured (no one with combat experience would have tolerated
> > such a misuse of military resources; it leaves our ground forces too
> > vulnerable). Damn it, people--you wouldn't keep an employee who
> > f***ed up this bad on the job! Why should we keep one in office?
> >
> > Dan
>
> The story continues to evolve. Perhaps before it is too late the truth will be told.
>
> http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1
>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm
>
> It becomes increasingly clear that the NYT and CBS are/were trying to influence the outcome of the election by releasing this story.

If these revelations are true, we have more to worry about than the
terrorists. What is not clear is that the NYT or CBS are/were trying
to influence the election. They reported on a letter by the Iraqi
government which was dated Oct. 10. That other sources have found
other information only confirms how news gathering and reporting
works--time reveals more of the facts. If I was wrong about my
assertions regarding Bush's handling of these weapons (since they may
not have been there to begin with), then I apologize.
However, from my perspective this only confirms my belief that we need
someone who is not a unilateralist when it comes to foreign policy.
All of George's being such a buddy with Vladimir (he did seem to be
quite chummy with Putin in the debate, ya' know) didn't help us one
bit.

Dan

"Bob Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> turns out of course that the stuff was misisng before we got there.
>
> another attempt by the NYT and CBS to get Bush.

It has yet to be established when the stuff went missing. It is not
clear that the NYT and CBS are out to get Bush--they were reporting on
a letter by the Iraqi government to the IAEA and dated Oct. 10
concerning the disappearance significant stockpiles of serious
explosives--what could be a potentially deadly problem for our troops,
for governments around the world, for anyone flying in a plane. They
shouldn't have reported this?

Dan

[email protected] (DSA) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048
>
> If you find 'em, why don't you stick 'em up your backside and light the fuse?
> Taz

Taz, et al: How intellegent!

Today the Washington Post, USA Today, MSNBC all carried stories about
the missing explosives, indicating they did in all likelyhood
disappear after the US invasion, after, in fact, troops looked at them
(a Minnesota news crew filmed troops opening the bunkers and the
barrels of explosives), and denials from the Pentagon that the
Russians were involved (countering a specious report by The Washington
Times yesterday and linked here above). The Post raises the issue of
what else has not been secured, with specific reference to Saddam's
nuclear weapons program equipment (looted AFTER the invasion).

It is quite clear that the planning of this invasion was done by
idiots; there does not appear to one credible justification for
keeping this man and his administration in office, and aside from his
bumbled execution of the war there are significant reasons to get rid
of him and the crooks he has surrounded himself with.

I'll say it again--we wouldn't keep an employee on the job who did
this kind of work, why should we keep Bush?

Dan

"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> The footage didn't show that they were the explosives in question.
> Did you not realize that? How does the Post account for civilians
> hauling that kind of payload around undetected at the time in that
> area ?
>
>
Actually, the footage does show the weapons in question, those with
U.N. seals on them.
>
>
> The major in charge of demolitions just reported that he was there then
> and destroyed some 200-250 tons of explosives. He thought the
> report initially referred to something newly deemed missing, as we were
> supposed to believe, but later realized it was his area they were talking
> about. What's your evidence that the explosives in question were
> stolen anyway? The idiots are those who claim their opinions are facts.

The latest reports from the Pentagon indicate the missing explosives
(identified by the U.N.) were not the ones destroyed by this Major
(see various AP reports on Sunday). There are also questions being
raised about some other 250,000 tons of known weapons material not
accounted for. Granted, the WH states that some 400,000 tons have or
will be destroyed, but they've said a lot of things that haven't been
true.

Answer these questions: Do you think it appropriate for a sitting
President to justify--with falsehoods, exagerations and
innuendoes--sending U.S. troops to war? Don't give me some BS about
the best available intellegence; there is ample evidence that the WH
ignored reliable sources that read things differently and manipulated
the analysis.

Can you answer this without changing the topic and asking about
someone else lying? I'm asking about a SITTING president, someone
with the power to kill. Is it right for a sitting President to lie
about why he sent Americans to die?

Dan

[email protected] (Florida Patriot) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq
> By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
> 26 October 2004
>
> In a massive pre-election embarrassment for the Bush administration,
> nearly 350 tons of lethal explosives - which could be used to trigger
> nuclear weapons - have vanished from a military facility in Iraq
> supposed to have been guarded by US troops.
>
> Hardly had the disappearance come to light than John Kerry, the
> Democratic presidential challenger, seized on the episode as proof
> that George Bush was incapable of keeping America safe. The material
> could already be in terrorist hands, he warned yesterday.
>
> According to The New York Times, which broke the story in a lengthy
> front-page story, the missing stockpiles - some 350 tons in all - are
> of HMX, RMX and PETN, extremely powerful, conventional explosives that
> are used to blow up buildings, fill missile warheads or detonate
> nuclear weapons. So devastating are they that just one pound of a
> similar explosive was enough to destroy Pan Am flight 103 over
> Lockerbie in December 1988. HMX, RMX, or explosives like them have
> been used in car and apartment bombings in Moscow and Riyadh, Saudi
> Arabia, in recent years.
>
> This was "one of the great blunders of the war," Mr Kerry said on the
> campaign trail in the swing state of New Hampshire. A statement from
> his campaign said the "unbelievable incompetence of this President and
> this administration has put our troops at risk and this country at
> greater risk", adding that Mr Bush, "who talks tough and brags about
> making America safer, has once again failed to deliver",
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048

If you find 'em, why don't you stick 'em up your backside and light the fuse?
Taz

[email protected] (Dan Cullimore) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (DSA) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > >
> > > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048
> >
> > If you find 'em, why don't you stick 'em up your backside and light the fuse?
> > Taz
>
> Taz, et al: How intellegent!
>
> Today the Washington Post, USA Today, MSNBC all carried stories about
> the missing explosives, indicating they did in all likelyhood
> disappear after the US invasion, after, in fact, troops looked at them
> (a Minnesota news crew filmed troops opening the bunkers and the
> barrels of explosives), and denials from the Pentagon that the
> Russians were involved (countering a specious report by The Washington
> Times yesterday and linked here above). The Post raises the issue of
> what else has not been secured, with specific reference to Saddam's
> nuclear weapons program equipment (looted AFTER the invasion).
>
> It is quite clear that the planning of this invasion was done by
> idiots; there does not appear to one credible justification for
> keeping this man and his administration in office, and aside from his
> bumbled execution of the war there are significant reasons to get rid
> of him and the crooks he has surrounded himself with.
>
> I'll say it again--we wouldn't keep an employee on the job who did
> this kind of work, why should we keep Bush?
>
> Dan

This forum is RSG for the uninformed that stands for R E C (recreation)
S P O R T G O L F. Key word being GOLF, not to be confused with political.
If you have a political comment do it in another forum............
TAZ

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:07:01 -0700, "TeamCasa" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Setting aside the controversy of when the explosives were stolen, I ask the
>big question. Who sold them to the Iraqis in the first place? The French
>or Germans? They were the only two countries capable of producing the HMX,
>RDX and PETN explosives beside the US.


Probably Haliburton.

Swingman wrote:
> "Al Reid" wrote in message
>
>>
>>It becomes increasingly clear that the NYT and CBS are/were trying to
>
> influence the outcome of the election by releasing this story.
>

It becomes increasingly clear that Al things that no news story that ruffles the
feathers of his favorite pols should be released at a time that could be
inconvenient
to them.

JK



--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:40:36 -0500, "Greg O" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Funny how this is old news! The news article said it was missing since the
>invasion of Iraq. In reality it was missing BEFORE the invasion of Iraq.


You were there, and saw that it was missing, eh ?
The only people that agree with you are Cheney
and some other Republican apparatchiks. The
US military says that it never checked, because
this administration refused to send enough troops
over there to do things properly.

"Greg O" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq
> > By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
> > 26 October 2004
> >
> >
>
> Funny how this is old news! The news article said it was missing since the
> invasion of Iraq. In reality it was missing BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. At
> that time it was under watch of the UN. Why is this Bush's fault??

The reality is that it was there the last time the IAEA checked it.

The first time US forces visited the site they did not inventory
the site so they don't know if the explosives were there or not.

There is a presumption on the part of the IAEA and others that the
stores would have been dispersed locally in anticipation of the
US bombing.

The IAEA remains responsible for monitoring 'dual use' material,
including explosives and explosive precursors optimal for an
implosion bomb. That the US is presently in control of Iraq
does not change that.

We haven't allowed the IAEA to check it again since the invasion.
The Iraqi government notified the IAEA that the explosives were
missing so the IAEA, A MONTH AGO, asked the US if we would account
for it. The IAEA received no reply from the US.

These explosives are not the only dual use materials to have gone
missing since the invasion began:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf

see also:

http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Invo/index.html

http://www.unmovic.org/

--

FF

Phil <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> Kerry blames Bush
> for jobs leaving this country. Prime example, flu vacinne. Hilary got a
> government run immunization program passed. Doesn't sound bad on the surface,
> but at the government fixed price, US manufactures stopped producing, those
> jobs went over seas, it left us reliant on a couple of overseas manufacturers.
> ...

If you ask Bush why there is a vaccine shortage he says it is because the
Congress wouldn't pass tort reform so the liability insurance for the
pharmaceutical companies is too high.

I do not see how lowering the costs for manufacturing the vaccine would
encourage the production of a larger surplus. With reduced liability
the companies could maintain the same margin and charge less for the
vaccine. Cetainly that would be a benefit to the consumer. But it still
wold not insure a surplus because producing a surplus would RAISE their
costs again.

Tort reform would have done nothing to prevetn the vaccine shortage.
That is typical of Bushlit, take a real problem and pretend that it
can be solved or could have been solved by some other part of
his agenda.

In a completely free market supply and demand will ebb and wane
creating periodic surpluses and shortages. That is true with or
without legal iability--tiort reform is irrelevent to the issue.
The only way to guarantee a surplus of anything, so that an uexpected
loss does not create a shortage, is to guarantee a market for that
surplus, like we do for agricultural products, unless we choose to
abandon the free market altogether.

"Pray you don't get sick" is a lousy health care plan.

I quite agree that the Clinton/GHBush/Reagan administrations did
little of nothing to prevent AMerican jobs from going overseas
Good thing none of those guys are running for President.

> ...
> Look at the subject of this thread, it's already been exposed for what it is,
> politics and news media bias, not fact.

It is true the the real issue related to the subject of this thread is
being obscured by the political rhetoric. The real issue is that UNMOVIC
and IAEA are still responsible for monitoring the Iraqi weapons programs,
and tracking dual use materials, such as those explosives. But since
the invasion, IAEA and UNMOVIC have been all but shut out of Iraq. They
now rely on satellite recon to carry out their mandates. They receive
NO cooperation from the US, even though they did help us clen up the
mess at Tuwaitha. A month ago the IAEA asked the US about those
explosives and received no responce. Had we told them that the
explosive disappeared before we took control of the site,
then of course that is what they would have reported. Since we did
not, they reported the facts which are:

1) The materials were there when last inspected by the IAEA.

2) The present Iraqi government reports that those materials are
now gone.

3) The US has not accounted for them either.

Spin it any way you like but those are the facts. Proliferation was
a predicted consequence of the invasion.

Why won't Bush allow the sites sealed by UNMOVIC and IAEA to be
reinspected? What is he hiding?

http://www.unmovic.org/

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-693.pdf

--

FF

"TeamCasa" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Setting aside the controversy of when the explosives were stolen, I ask the
> big question. Who sold them to the Iraqis in the first place? The French
> or Germans [or the US?, FF]? They were the only two countries capable
> of producing the HMX, RDX and PETN explosives beside the US.
>

That information is probably to be found in the 2002 Iraqi WMD Declaration
which remains secret becuase to release it would be 'intensely embarassing"
to those companies who helped Iraq violate the sanctions.

Maybe one of these:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/89-07102004-329263.html

--


FF

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041029/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_nuclear_agency_iraq&cid=540&ncid=1480

ElBaradei said the timing "was driven" by a letter dated Oct. 10
that the International Atomic Energy Agency received from Iraq
(news - web sites)'s Ministry of Science and Technology. It
stated
that the high explosive material had disappeared from the former
military installation at Al-Qaqaa after April 9, 2003 as a result
of "theft and looting ... due to lack of security."

"I informed the U.S. government with the hope that before the
issue
broke in public that they can retrieve it," ElBaradei said. "But
once
it became public, of course, I had to inform the Security
Council
immediately."
...
"My concern has always been security — not who knew what —
but security of the troops, security of the Iraqi people,"
ElBaradei told the AP. "Our hope is to make sure that this
stuff does not fall into the wrong hands. It's a security
issue for us, and for the world and for the Americans, of
course."

He told CNN "it's not who is to blame, it's a matter of can
we retrieve these explosives and take precautionary measures."

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/IraqUNSC25102004.pdf

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/OctoberReport.pdf

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/unscreport_110404.shtml

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2004/inspectionsiraq20040202.html

--

FF

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Al Reid" wrote in message
> >
> > The story continues to evolve. Perhaps before it is too late the truth
> will be told.
> >
> > http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1
> >
> > http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm
> >
> > It becomes increasingly clear that the NYT and CBS are/were trying to
> influence the outcome of the election by releasing this story.
>
> ... and all along I thought that Islamic fundamentalism was our biggest
> enemy.

I thought that fundamentalism was our biggest enemy.

--

FF

"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > On 27 Oct 2004 07:35:24 -0700, [email protected] (BowTie) wrote:
> >
> > >Exactly. NBC News is even saying the story is bunk.
> >
> > You're lying.
> >
> > >This is just like what the left attempted with Clarence Thomas. Or
> > >perhaps the Bush, U2, Iran hostage negotiation charges. "The
> > >seriousness of the charges is more important than the nature of the
> > >evidence.". These people will stop at nothing to sieze power. Kerry
> > >and Edwards would sell their mothers to win Ohio and Florida and
> > >Wisconsin.
> > >
> >
> > The reality is Bush and his coterie do not have the courage to
> > stand behind their bad decisions, choosing to hide behind our
> > troops, pretending it was their call.
> >
> > "The senator is making wild charges about missing explosives," said
> > Bush. "Think about that: The senator is denigrating the action of our
> > troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts."
>
> From an ABC News story"
> ======
> IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told the United Nations in February 2003 that Iraq had declared that "HMX previously under IAEA seal
> had been transferred for use in the production of industrial explosives, primarily to cement plants as a booster for explosives used
> in quarrying."
> ======
>
> This was before the invasion.

The quantity diverted for quyarrying was also indicated as 32 tons,
less than 10% of that in question.

See also:

http://www.unmovic.org/

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-693.pdf

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/chrono_jan_04.shtml

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/IraqUNSC25102004.pdf

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/OctoberReport.pdf

--

FF

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:40:36 -0500, Greg O <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq
> >> By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
> >
> > Funny how this is old news! The news article said it was missing since the
> > invasion of Iraq. In reality it was missing BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. At
> > that time it was under watch of the UN. Why is this Bush's fault?? These
> > explosives were in the news over a year ago!
>
> Ssssh, don't confuse the troll with actual facts. It's still Bush's fault
> that it was stolen before we went in there, somehow, I'm sure.

Well let's think about that. befor the invasion it was inventoried and
sealed by the IAEA. EIther Saddam Husseing moved it in anticipation
of the invasion, or it was looted during or after the invasion, in
either case the change to the status quo was becuase of the invasion.

Regarding this and other dual use materials at other sites:


http://www.unmovic.org/

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-693.pdf

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/chrono_jan_04.shtml

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/IraqUNSC25102004.pdf

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/OctoberReport.pdf

--

FF

"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<2hCgd.399$o52.261@trndny03>...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >

> > http://www.unmovic.org/
> >http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-693.pdf
> > >http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf
> >
> > http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/chrono_jan_04.shtml
> >
> > http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/IraqUNSC25102004.pdf
> >
> > http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/OctoberReport.pdf
> >

>
> Another option is that it was removed and inventoried/destroyed by the US
> military and the Iraqis and IAEA were unaware of this. To them it may have
> appeared to have disappeared.

That is a possibility but the US is supposed to inform the IAEA of
any such unilateral action. Indeed, the US is supposed to notify
the IAEA in advance, so they can witness it. As the referenced
documents show, the IAEA asked the US if we could account for the
explosives and had recieved no reply by the time the story became
public. AFAICT the IAEA still has received no reply from the US,
despite various public statments by less-than official sources.

>
> The truth is, at this point, no one is quite sure. It seems that everyone
> is jumping to conclusions based on their current political bias.

To shout that it was stolen out from under the noses of either the
US or the IAEA would be to jump to a conclusion, and most likely
a conclusion dictated by political bias.

However, to conclude that the explosives are missing as a consequence
of the invasion is not. If they are missing because they were
destroyed, then that's a good thing and if they are missing but
not destroyed that's a bad thing.

Either way the story is still exaggerated beyond its importance.
Either way, paramilitary and sabatouers worldwide will
be able to get explosives adequate for their purposes and for a
nation building an atomic bomb obtaining the necessary explosives
is one of the least difficult aspects of the program.

But we see that in general sites in Iraq that were secure against
proliferation befor the invasion are no longer secure. The IAEA
and UNMOVIC no longer have access to inventory and monitor those
sites and we see dual use materials tagged in Iraq appearing all
over the world now. According to some, they would like to reinspect
those sites, but the US cannot spare the personell necessary to
protect them.

This proliferation was a predicted consequence of the invasion, though
I personally think the associated risk is minimal given that the
material is overwhelming dual-use and thus mostly widely available
on the open market. But that, in turn, is a consequence of the
fact that Iraq did not have 'single use' WMD or else in the unlikely
case that Iraq did, the proliferation of those WMD have not yet
been detected.

--

FF

Phil <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>

>
> The government didn't reduce the manufacturing cost!

Of course not, no one said the governmnet did. Bush claims that
the governmment CAN reduce manufacturing cost through tort reform.
While that is true, it is also irrelevent to the issue of shortages.

No matter whether the manufacturing cost is high or low a manufacturer
will not get paid for vaccine that is not sold. Regardless of whether
there are many manufacturers or few, regardless of whether they
are American or not, and regardless of whether their costs are
high or low they cannot afford to manufacture vaccine significantly
in excess of anticipated demand. If they do, they lose money and
if they do it a lot, they go out of business.

Tort reform will not create a vaccine surplus any more than it would
create agricultural surpluses.

> They set a low price on what
> they would pay to buy it. This is a huge difference.
> I'm going to explain it again:

No need, I did not disagree with anything you wrote. I simply used it
as an opportunity to point out that Bush was twisting the issue into
an opportunity to push an agenda that DID NOT address the issue.

I've no argument with what you have to say about Hillary's bill etc.



> Bush's statement is correct, in that product liability especially in the medical and
> pharmaceutical industry is so costly, manufactureres and dr.s get out of the
> unprofitable aspect of the business.

The studies I have seen show that medical liability results in an
increase of 9% in what the American consumer pays overall for Health
Care. That is substantial, but not catastrophic, especially if you
keep in mind that a substantial part of that is a consequence of
payouts to legitimate plaintiffs. By no accounting are frivolous
suits a significant financial burden.

http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html

The cost of Malpractice Insurance may be (I daresay it IS but have no
examples to cite) onerous in certain areas and for certain
specialities,
that might include the production of vaccines, though for medications
in general is is the developement costs that are onerous and must
be recouped during the rather short period in which patent protections
apply to the new product. That leads to a whole host of other
problems.

>
> ->Tort reform would have done nothing to prevetn the vaccine shortage.
> ->That is typical of Bushlit, take a real problem and pretend that it
> ->can be solved or could have been solved by some other part of
> ->his agenda.
>
> You need to brush up on your understanding of economics and business.

Can you explain how tort reform can make it less unprofitable for a
manufacturer to produce more vaccine than they can sell?

>
> I live in an area where two economic truth's have manifested itself to cause issues.
>
> 1. A major inner city retail mall closed because insurance costs became so
> expensive the businesses couldn't afford it. Why, because frivilous lawsuits were
> getting large sums of money because the jury's were made up of constituants that
> didn't see the correlation between jury awards and their jobs.

Not true. Frivolous lawsuits do not get money. Frivolous lawsuits
are dismissed, sometimes with predjudice. The mall may have been
closed due
to costs of litigation, or due to costs of settlements or payouts to
succdesfulo plaintiffs, but no defendant loses a frivolous suit.

>
> 2. a few miles away in a depressed economic area, two hospitals have no surgeons,
> because the Dr's left because of the same principal. Their insurance got so high,
> it made no sense to go to work.

This is surely a problem for some doctors, some hospitals and in
some areas.

--

FF

[email protected] (JohnD) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > He (Bush) is the only President in my lifetime that has put whats right over political gain.
>
> It is interesting what people will conclude...
>
> Bush was completely opposed to the formation of the Department of
> Homeland Security. He joined the backing of it only after it was
> clear it had overwhelming public support.

IISTR that Bush announced the Cabinet Position and his selection of
Tom Ridge very shortly after the attacks of September 11. At the
time, I thought it was a bad idea to create yet another layer of
beaurocracy instead of consolidation the existings ones. Have you
any idea how many Federal police forces we have for internal and
border security?

Here are just a few:

FBI
DEA
US Marshall Service
Secret Service
Customs Service
Border Patrol
Coast Guard
BATF (smokin', drinkin' and shootin', sounds like fun!))
USPS Police (edgads--Stamp Cops!)
USSC police
US Park Service Police
INS field agents
IRS field agents

There are a bunch more.

One thing is clear, the Democrats and the Republicans both
favor more government whenever they think they'll be the ones
creating it.

>
> The sweet no-bid to Haliburton - clearly a move motivated only by what
> is right.

Haliburton got a sweet no-bid in Kosovo too. COmpanies like that
do not survive by currying the favor of only one party.

--

FF

Phil <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> ray wrote:
>
>
> I voted against Bush Sr. and I made a HUGE mistake! I voted for GW Bush, and
> there are some things I don't agree with him on, but I have never been more
> impressed by a man. He has run this country on principles and values, not
> what feels good at the time. He is the only President in my lifetime that has
> put whats right over political gain.

I daresay that it is largely true that Bush does not consider the
political
consequences of his actions but that is a manifestation of a lack of
attention for any consequences at all. He seems to think that if he
acts according to whatever his personal internal code asserts as
right then a favorable outcome will simply occur automatically.
He says he prays to God for guidance. I suppose he wants us to
conclude
that if we object to his policies we are against God. That sort of
thinking has been rejected since sometime after the end of the Middle
Ages. At other times he acts without any apparent regard for
recognizable moral principle at all. It is like the political
equivalent to brownian motion.

The Vietnamization of Iraq is a prime example of what has resulted
from
his prioritization of whatever it IS that motivates himi over
practical
reality. There are more.

The proliferation of dual use equipment and materials from Iraq was
a predicted consequence of the invasion that has come to fruition:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-693.pdf
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/unscreport_110404.shtml
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/OctoberReport.pdf
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/IraqUNSC25102004.pdf

But it is not just an absence of pramatism. The claim he has a basis
in principle is belied by actions contrary to basic American
Principles that are plainly motivated by politics.

Bush and/or Asscraft and Rumsfeld have declared that we will not
observe
the Geneva Conventions IRT battlefield captives from Afghanistan.
Sweden, France, and our strongest ally, the UK have all protested that
both as a matter of principle and in specific regard to their own
nationals held prsoner in Cuba. The Geneva conventions may be found
here:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/intlinst.htm

the links are at the bottom of the page.

Our own Uniform Code of Military Justice includes regulation governing
the treatment of ALL prisoners, not just POWs:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/ar190-8.pdf

Both the Geneva Conventions and our own UCMJ contain provisions
that Americans should all recognize as guarantees of due process.

As we all know, due process does not exist to protect the guilty, it
exists to protect the innocent. What more important right is there
than the right to defend oneself against unfounded accusation?
That right is protected in the regulations referenced above, which
have the force of Federal Law and cannot be set aside by the
Secretaries of Defense, of the Justice Department or the Commander
in Chief. Due process is protected in the Geneva Conventions and
our own Constitution.

Bush has led a war against this most fundamental human right
attacking both foreign nationals and American citizens alike.
Remember the 1200 foreigners Ashcroft disappeared? Any number
of petty criminals turned up, same as one would expect if 1200
citizens were locked up, interrogated, adn investigated for a
year. Only one (1) of those prisoners (a seller of forged
documents) was found to have any connection at all with any
plots against the US and his involvement was so peripheral that
he was simply deported without further prosecution.

We gained nothing from that action. We lost any pretense to
moral authority and weakened potential cooperation of the
Arab American community, whose cooperation and support
we needed most for rather obvious reasons. Those arrests
did nothing ot make us safer, they were done for purely
political purpoese such as to impress evil men like
Tim Daneliuk who seem to think that every civilian imprisoned
by our government is a spy and that spies may be treated arbitrarily.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3911592805d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=vgcen1-93p.ln1%40eskimo.tundraware.com>

These attacks on basic American principles is not leadership. It is
a deliberate choice of authoritarian government over the rule
of law. It is not the sort of leadership our founding fathers
wanted not is it the sort of leadership *I* want in a President.

It is leadership to anarchy where power replaces reason and
principle as our guiding forces.

Even in the absence of specific orders to violate regulations, the
abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram, and other places is
a predictable consequence of the public statements from the Bush
administration.

There will always be criminals who seek out opportunities to commit
their crimes under the color of authority. Those crimes are
encouraged
when their leaders denounce the rule of law and scoff at reports of
abuse. Those leaders by their words of encouragement become complicit
in those crimes.

> On the other hand Kerry has said anything to anyone to get a vote. It's well
> documented, irrefutable. His voting record in the Senate, his congressional
> testimony on returning from Vietnam where he admitted to committing he
> committing war crimes in Vietnam are documented actions that I don't agree
> with or want in a president, neither did our founding fathers.

" his congressional
testimony on returning from Vietnam where he admitted to committing
he
committing war crimes in Vietnam are documented actions"

is easily demonstrated to be a false statement by reviewing his
testimony here:

http://www.pbs.org/greatspeeches/timeline/j_kerry_s.html

In that testimony Kerry ACCURATELY related what had been said at
Winter Soldier Investigation in Detroit as is proven by comparing
his testimony befor the Senate with the statements he heard in
Detroit:

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/WS_entry.html

Any number of dishonest people have come forward to claim that Kerry
testified that he had participated or personally witnessed events
about
which he testified but the FACT is (remember how you distinguished
between
facts and lies?) he was always clear that he was relating what had
been told by others.

>
> ...
>
> Look at the subject of this thread, it's already been exposed for what it is,
> politics and news media bias, not fact. Is Kerry denoucing it? No he's
> playing politics for his gain. A major newspaper yesterday had a very similar
> heading, LARGE Print front page, at the end of the article on the last page it
> mentioned that the initial information was reported in April 2003 and there
> was no evidence the explosives were there when we went into Iraq. There is
> only one reason to do that, try to influence the election for a Kerry win.
>

As usual, spin is obscuring the real issues. Check out the
proliferation
links above to see what is realy being reported by the IAEA and
UNMOVIC.

--

FF

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> The alleged mobile weapons labs were actually helium
> generators for weather balloons, sold to the Iraqis by the Brits.
> ...

You mispelt 'hydrogen', and a t least some of the components in the
trailer were manufactured in Iraq. Otherwise I have no objections.

--

FF

HAH! I bet Bush took it himself. No reason not to, considering the cost
of that much material and it is free for the taking.

Alex

The irony is you will never see a story about what Senator Kerry has or
has not done since he hasn't done a flipping thing except collect a pay
check in the US senate in eighteen years .

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:28:25 -0500, "Greg O" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>News articles dated well over a year ago are not good enough proof for you?
>Greg
>


What news articles "dated well over a year ago" show is how
many times Bush has flip-flopped on why he sent our people to
die in Iraq, flip-flopped on whether he can "win the war on
terrorists (first yes, then no, then yes again after Karl Rove got
to him), flip-flopped on whether we needed Homeland Security,
and flip-flopped on whether the September 11 tragedy should
be investigated, along with a slew of flip-flops or outright lies on
a range of other issues. That's what going back to old news
articles show. Luckily for Bush, most Good Republicans won't
do that.

W/respect to the explosives, old news stories don't do as much
for me as the video footage taken by the Minnesota news crew
showing the explosives in the bunker being looked at by American
troops, and left behind by them when they left to continue their
mission.
operation,
flip-flopped

George Bush let these explosives get away because???

He'd prefer they be used against us in the future?

He want some incredible atrocity to be committed by terrorists and he
wants them to have the capability?

Why did Roosevelt allow the Battle of the Bulge to take place?

Maybe Presidents, Generals, planners do the best they can, on our
behalf, with what they know at the time and the amount of time they have
to evaluate and plan.

I'm damn glad I'm not in a position where I have to deal with all the
"second guessers".

Bush has done well enough through this that he and his team have my
confidence.

bob g.

Dan White wrote:

> "Dan Cullimore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>>Saddam had a habit of moving his stash.
>>>It would have taken about 38 trucks to haul the stuff out,
>>>how did that happen during or after the occupation?
>>
>>And we wouldn't have noticed with all the fly-overs, satelite imaging,
>>etc. we were doing? I find that incredible.
>>
>
>
> Apparently you missed some of the just released satellite photos that showed
> several trucks lined up at that facility shortly before the war began.
>
> dwhite
>
>

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:48:19 -0500, "Don Armstrong"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>hahaha, I can't help if the end of two of my fingers are busted and injured.


Forgot where they were last time you sat down ?

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:21:39 -0500, "Greg O" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>The information I have read indicates that the explosives went missing
>BEFORE the invasion,

Only a neocon would define a Limbaugh rant as "information."

"elmer swanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "elmer swanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Greg O" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > "Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq
> > > > > By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
> > > > > 26 October 2004
> > > >
> > > > Funny how this is old news! The news article
> > > > said it was missing since the
> > > > invasion of Iraq. In reality it was missing
> > > > BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. At
> > > > that time it was under watch of the UN.
> > >
> > > ".... The stockpile was found to be intact in March 2003, when United
> > > Nations weapons inspectors checked it just days before the
> > > American-led invasion. On April 10, one day after Saddam Hussein was
> > > toppled, American troops visited the Al Qaqaa depot, not finding any
> > > big cache of explosives but apparently not looking very closely
> > > either.
> > >
> > > The troops' commander has explained that his unit was on its way to
> > > Baghdad and had simply paused at Al Qaqaa to plan the next stage of
> > > their advance...."
> > >
> > > So they're not sure if it disappeared before American occupation took
> > > over. But it's serious because they're the the type of explosives
> > > "that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988 and blasted
> > > a hole in the American destroyer Cole in 2000."
> >
> > So, what you're saying is that as far as we know, the stuff was gone
before
> > we got there?
>
> No, I'm saying it as far as we know it was there "just days before the
> American-led invasion." That the American troops visited the Al Qaqaa
> depot on April 10, but were in a hurry to get to Baghdad and didn't
> have time to look for the munitions. Now they're gone.
> The Pentagon claims the explosives went missing in March or early
> April but it's not just Kerry, the Iraqi government and the Times who
> think it was looted after the invasion, the International Atomic
> Energy Agency seems to think it's likely too.
>
>
> `.... after the invasion (May 2003), the IAEA fretted in an internal
> memo about the "explosives bonanza" terrorists might be reaping; in
> May 2004, Iraqi officials say they warned CPA head L. Paul Bremer that
> Al-Qaqaa had most likely been looted. The Times also reports that the
> CIA listed the site as a "medium priority" on its list of 500
> locations to be searched and secured....`
>
> http://slate.msn.com/id/2108771/
>
>
> The fact that troops weren't able to secure and survey the place until
> late May can be blamed on what most of the chaos in Iraq can be blamed
> on ....
> * not enough troops
> * no planning.
>
> and that's why we need a COMPETENT president.
>
> > And just so we're clear, the last time anyone at the IAEA
> > actually saw the explosives was January 2003. The IAEA visited the site
> > again in March, but didn't actually look inside the storage bunkers
> > containing the explosives.
>
> you sure?
>
> ".... IAEA personnel had visited Qaqaa on March 9 and found intact
> seals on the bunkers where the HMX was stored. U.S. forces invaded
> Iraq on March 19 ..."
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A816-2004Oct26?language=printer

I missed the part of the story where the IAEA looked inside the storage
bunkers. When I read the story, it says that they found the seals intact
and assumed that the explosives were inside. Even if the explosives were
there, by your own account, there were at least 10 days to remove it before
US forces arrived in Iraq.

todd

"Dan Cullimore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > Saddam had a habit of moving his stash.
> > It would have taken about 38 trucks to haul the stuff out,
> > how did that happen during or after the occupation?
>
> And we wouldn't have noticed with all the fly-overs, satelite imaging,
> etc. we were doing? I find that incredible.
>

Apparently you missed some of the just released satellite photos that showed
several trucks lined up at that facility shortly before the war began.

dwhite

"Greg O" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Bombshell for Bush: 350 tons of explosives go missing in Iraq
> > By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
> > 26 October 2004
> >
> >
>
> Funny how this is old news! The news article said it was missing since the
> invasion of Iraq. In reality it was missing BEFORE the invasion of Iraq.
At
> that time it was under watch of the UN. Why is this Bush's fault?? These
> explosives were in the news over a year ago!
> Left-wing spin, smoke screen on old news!
> Greg
>

They're trying again for an October surprise just like Rather tried. It's
an act of desperation.

dwhite

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:51:30 -0500, Phil wrote:

> Your either pro Democracy or pro Kerry, can't be both
> You either support our troops or support Kerry, can't be both
> You either support freedom or support Kerry, can't be both

What about the troops who plan to vote for Kerry? How do they fit into
your formula. You do realize, I hope, that you're slandering half of your
fellow Americans at a time in our nation when unity is far more important
than petty politics. Your sentiments are deeply unAmerican. You should be
ashamed. You better hope the Founding Fathers don't rise from their graves
and slap some sense into you.

That said, I believe Bush will be re-elected. However, what will you do
if Kerry wins? Will you renounce your citizenship rather than give your
support to the new President?

"Robert Galloway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Bush has done well enough through this that he and his team have my
> confidence.

Bush has done poorly. Your analogy with Germany is a poor one. That was an
extremely difficult war against an extremely difficult opponent. The Iraqi
army was a piece of cake compared to that. The problem is that Bush thought
we had to defeat the Iraqi army and didn't think any further than that.
You're right that mistakes are inevitable. The way this war has been
planned and waged is not just a series of mistakes. It's a colassal
clusterfuck that proves he can't think and can't plan - he can only react
based on juvenile feelings like fear, revenge, and protecting his self
image.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:56:09 -0700, "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote:

>
>You just supported it, didn't you realize that? It was eventually
>created as a Federal Departmental Agency, not cabinet post.
>

The bottom line is Bush flip-flopped, creating SOMETHING
after refusing to create ANYTHING.

We can read it on CNN, ya know.