Actually, for a guy claiming to be better than Bush - he's proving to be worse...

It's all they got.

Well, nunya, shep, Bush took the reports the CIA had placed their highest confidence in, and still gave diplomacy a chance, going to the UN and telling them that now was the time to either prove their effectiveness or be revealed as impotent.

Kerry took a NYTimes article that was obviously poorly-vetted, didn't wait for any fact-checking, just ran with it, shooting from the hip. Fact, not 'faith.' A very bad showing for someone who wishes to sit in the Oval Office.

Read your link, it's still reporting Monday's news, rather than the facts that have been developed since then. Also, are we talking about the same IAEA that claimed Libya had no nuclear program?

Here's one for you nunya, just to get your facts straight.
The Myth of the 'Missing Explosives'
Goes by point for point as to why the IAEA is discredited in this instance.

And I see you'd have preferred the idea that Saddam remained in power. Diplomacy is a tool, not an end of itself. Of course Bush went with his intentions to the UN. If you're saying Kerry wouldn't, but would instead allow the UN say in American security interests, then all the more reason not to vote for him.

They are still claiming the bad numbers. The story proves nada. UN documents from before the invasion disprove this story. Keep trying.

Interesting, I didn't know 10-28-04 at 7:48 am was Monday. Wow, I wish I lived in your world John. I guess the reality I live in is just too harsh.

http://www.wral.com/news/3866417/detail.html

The point of the missing weapons misinformation story is not who HERE at the Queen's believes it but how it flies among the voters. Many believe this is a huge backfire for Kerry out there in voter land. Since there is so much confusion the guy on the street is most apt to think that, yes, that the Kerry campaign went to fast with this accusation and it reeks of last ditch desperation. That's not what I think, of course. (Kerry seems far from desperate IMO) but what do the masses think? That's the salient point in this campaign story, folks. We'll find out in a few days.

Nunya, I read the dateline. As I said, your link was still reporting the Monday information, without any of the discoveries since then.

Nunya:
The thing that interests me is that Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards were on the intelligence committee. They should have had access to this information way, way before the New York Times. They should have known which way this story was going to break, or had some staffer do a quick double check.

It seems they broke too fast with this. That's disturbing. They had the time to "measure twice cut once" and don't appear to have done so. It's forgivable when you don't have time and have to make a snap judgment and get it wrong. It's forgivable to make a considered judgment that turns out wrong because, unbeknownst to you, the best information you had was incorrect. It is, however, disturbing to me if a possible leader has the time to double-check things and has access to additional information and does not avail himself of that before making a decision.

This sort of reminds me of the Kerry Campaign's apparent lack of a plan to deal with the SwiftVet accusations when they first came out, an attack even I knew would come after him. It appalled me that they were blindsided by such an obvious attack. This disturbs me in that it seems they made the mistake of trusting the information from a third party without appearing to take the opportunity to test it. It shows lack of planning and lack of foresight. It shows contempt for your foes and a comensurate arrogance about the strength of one's own position, a stunning lack of self-analysis. All of those are dangerous and are not traits that I want to see in a potential President.

Mikey

"It appalled me that they were blindsided by such an obvious attack. This disturbs me in that it seems they made the mistake of trusting the information from a third party without appearing to take the opportunity to test it. It shows lack of planning and lack of foresight. It shows contempt for your foes and a comensurate arrogance about the strength of one's own position, a stunning lack of self-analysis. All of those are dangerous and are not traits that I want to see in a potential President."

Well put, Mikey. Who was it, again, you were talking about?

...Bush took the reports the CIA had placed their highest confidence in...

Heh.

What reports were those?

good catch shep!

Shep:
The Kerry campaign's use of a newspaper report that they didn't have to use, one that they could easily cross-reference with data they had access to. Going by what you're implying, I assume your quip was in regard to that good old Duncan Hines yellowcake (please correct me if I'm wrong with that assumption.) I find it to be far more unusual for a campaign to completely trust a newspaper account than the US Gov't's (any administration) use of data from our closest ally (United Kingdom) which they were assured was accurate.

I think you ought to see the paragraph before the one you quoted from and read it again. I think the part where I stated that mistakes are forgivable if you are relying on the best data available and proves to be wrong. [Not that the Iraqi Gov't wasn't trying to obtain fissiles - they were.] There is no way I had hang a dog in that situation, it would be totally unjust. Similarly, as I stated, making a spur-of-the moment decision that turns out wrong because you don't have time for a full review is also forgivable. None of us would be alive if those were capital crimes. The President, of any party, can't be held to a higher standard than that. It isn't just. He's human, he's imperfect, and the world is one big, nasty place, where crap happens, and he has to deal with it.

What is disturbing is the section that you quoted. That failure to verify when you can is a symptom of either laziness or hubris and cannot be afforded at the highest levels. There is no indication that in the run-up to the Iraq War that intelligence was not double-checked to the extent that it could be. At least, I haven't heard any credible reports about that. The one I most remember is the CIA director assured President Bush that the CIA's information was "slam dunk" and was asked by Pres. Bush to verify it. Measure twice cut once.

Ara: I think those were the CIA reports I mentioned in my preceding paragraph. Intelligence is never perfect, but you have to use what you have. What else would you do? I thank God my job is no where near as stressful as that of POTUS or I'd keel over from a heart-attack at age 38.

Mikey

Ara, that would be the reports on Iraqi WMD programs as you full well know. The same intelligence that was corroborated by multiple other sources.

What did Kerry have to go by in his latest attack? A poorly written NY Times article, that he apparently didn't even read all the way through, and that his campaign managers are now frantically trying to disengage him from.

“That failure to verify when you can is a symptom of either laziness or hubris and cannot be afforded at the highest levels.”

I agree. But how, exactly, could John Kerry verify what was looted and when, since the guys in charge don’t even have a clue? The following statements to the American people were not verified and, in fact, are dismissed by the very sources (except the learned Brits of course ;-) to which they were attributed:

“The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”
– George W. Bush, State of the Union, Jan. 28, 2003

“Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.”
- Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio

“This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda”
- George W. Bush speaking about Saddam Hussein
Remarks by the President in Minnesota Welcome
11/2/2002

That “intelligence” wasn’t corroborated by anyone.

How to tell the if the explosives story is true, the apologists start blaming the troops

"From the October 28 edition of NBC's Today:

GIULIANI: The president was cautious. The president was prudent. The president did what a commander in chief should do. And no matter how much you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?

Bill Kristol October 28 edition of FOX News Channel's FOX News Live:
"[President] George [W.] Bush didn't decide, you know, "skip that dump" [the Al Qaqaa military installation, where the missing explosives were supposedly housed]. That was 101st [Airborne Division] or the 3rd ID [Infantry Division], "skip that arms dump." That's not a decision made by the president, that's made on the ground.

Have any of the President's critics worked in a large organization? Did you know that railroads lose (not get looted, lose) whole railcars? Railcars which can hold up to 100 tons? Down at a local railyard is a locomotive which has been sitting idle for about twenty years. Why? Because the railroad which owned it went bankrupt and no one can figure out who it belongs to.

This is either 3 tons or 380 out of 600,000. Do you really think the President and his cabinet should have control over and information on only twenty semi loads or one dump truck load of high explosive when what they should be doing is running the war?

The last thing we need is that kind of micromanagement.

What the critics are saying is that, not only that Presidents can't make mistakes in real time during an actual shooting war, but that Cabinet members and Generals and Colonels and Majors and Captains and Lieutenants can't make them either. And they are doing this when the actual culprits are more likely to be the UN and Saddam Hussein.

These are just high explosives, not biologicals, chemical weapons or nukes. Oh, and BTW, did you know styrofoam is an important component of hydrogen bombs? Quick, put an IAEA seal on the coffee cups!

This is a tempest in a teapot.

Yours,
Wince

Allowing looting was policy. Rumsfeld joked about it. The administration drowned in a river of dreams believing the Iraqis would be eternally greatful for invasion and occupation.They made no plan to secure the country just it's resources.
Garner, the first administrator. wanted to hold elections and thought it might be illegal to take over Iraq's industries. He was gone in a flash.

There were biologicals there also, they are gone.

nunya,

We must mean different things when we say micromanagement. Even in the case of nuclear weapons the President should not micromanage the problem. That is for the people in the field. The President is responsible at the grand strategy level. If the President is concerning himself with a mere 380 tons of high explosive he is neglecting his duties at the grand strategy level. Captains don't make grand strategy. Presidents don't search arms dumps.

Yours,
Wince

Radiation detectors at all inlets and major highways eliminate the need for individual inspection for nuclear material. Getting nuclear material into this country is much harder than simply hiding it in your trunk.

Hey wait a minute! It sounds like some of you commenters think there were WMD like with biological agents and uranium and shit like that in that ammo dump. Whoa, alert the media. There were WMD in Iraq! Enough to blow up half the city of new york and well...

Wince:

You got it. The criticism is of a kind that no President of any party should be subject to. It is petty. The White House does not draw up operational plans (or seriously ought not - way out of its area of expertise - that's DoD's job.) Executing the plans belongs to the soldiers. The President may give the go word. Then he sits and waits like the rest of us.

Will things be fubar'd? Of course, that's the nature of life. "Best laid plans" and "Murphy's Law" came about for a reason.

What should Senator Kerry have done with this? Absolutely nothing. There's no story there. A few hundred tons of HE are missing and we're not sure when they went missing. There's really no story there.

BTW, I'm not blaming the soldiers. I'm blaming those people who took the stuff. I don't blame cops for crime occurring, I blame criminals.

Nunya, I've decided I'm not gonna trade personal insults (stupid?) with you so save it. I can see that you have the ability to comment intelligently. I apologize for calling you a cretin. Let's try to be civil. Shep calls his opponents "addled" "deluded" and other equally civil terms in place of stupid. Just a suggestion. Invective is not a compelling debate technique. Wit and respect are.

jane,

What's civil about being called addled and deluded?

Yours,
Wince

"Shep calls his opponents "addled" "deluded" and other equally civil terms in place of stupid."

No, no, no, no. I said that people who continue to deny the horrific mistakes of this administration are deluded, Don says they're addled. But, in the name of civility, I'm willing to split the difference ;-)

"The President is responsible at the grand strategy level."

How 'bout this for a grand strategy: "#1, Secure all the weapons that might be used against us." That is why we were there in the first place, right?

Wince

Perhaps I should reconsider. I guess actually any of those three adjectives is not quite polite but stupid seems the worst to me.

So Shep, I take exception to "deluded". Same to you, Bud ;-0

Nunya

Desperate is not complimentary but less offensive than stupid and I use it a lot myself so, yes, call me and my like-minded commenters desperate if you must but voters at large are not hooking into this latest Kerry accusation. I suspect that the desperation in the campaign is primarily coming from the challenger who always has a tough row to hoe. This latest kerfuffle is the best they have it seems and it is not resonating among the voters (excluding the internet Kerry afficinados) but the MSM fiasco certainly is.

It may seem like an earth shattering issue to you but most of us are going "yawn" and the polls remain where they're at. The election cliff hanger is still running despite the missing 377 or 130 or is it 3 tons of stuff? Since I (like most of the country) am bored with this subject I confess that, no, as you surmised I have not read every comment carefully or even all the ABC, NYT, 60 Minutes and on and on. So carry on chattering about this while I ponder how important it is to be smart if your a politician...

"It may seem like an earth shattering issue to you but most of us are going "yawn" and the polls remain where they're at."

jane m,

It's not at all "earth shattering" to those who can still judge accurately. We've come to expect malfeasance, dishonesty and disaster from this administration. But those who choose to support a president and yawn at the fact that he negligently armed the enemy fighting our soldiers, while wanting them to win, has exactly the cognitive dissonance problem I was referring to.

We've come to expect malfeasance, dishonesty and disaster from this administration

You've expected that ever since sore-loser Gore was slapped down for trying to rewrite election results in his favor. Instead President Bush has given us honesty, straight talk, and strength of leadership. No amount of Moore-ish fact twisting, distortion, and outright lies from the LEft can change that.

nunya,

Your memory is faulty.

Yours,
Wince

Nunya

Now you are misunderstanding me. I'm talking about the fact that the polls are showing an almost even split for Bush/Kerry as they have all along especially the average shown at realclearpolitics this mini-mystery not withstanding. I'm not prediciting a winner. Bush's numbers are slightly higher than Kerry's but not enough to be significant. You might as well say they're neck and neck.

I'm saying this campaign is about getting elected and Kerry's strategy this week is to find a wedge to move the polls up in his favor. So's Bush. Kerry wouldn't be talking about the missing materiel if he had a comfortable lead. I'm TRYING to point out that there is a broader issue here - how to win an election and the week by week strategy of both campaigns is very telling. You guys are drinking more than your share of kool-aid over this. Talk about letting yourself get manipulated.

Shep, I'm yawning because at this point if an issue doesn't move the electorate it's not relevent to the major issue of the election itself. Sorting out the good decisions, the mistakes, the successes or the miscalulations of the Iraqi invasion and occupation must wait for the objectivity that some distance will give us not to mention the time to actually know what the facts are of any given situation.

All I can say regarding your attitude over this mystery is that I sure hope you don't ever get on a jury...you seem not to have the patience required to wait for the facts before passing judgement.

I really want to know if anyone here actually thinks that 300+/- tons of explosives were driven down the road past US Army units, under the wings of the US Air Force?*

If you answered the first question "yes" I have a second question: would you participate in the movement of that much HE past the US military.**

(The reasonable person answers:
"No*" and "Hell No!**")

"I'm TRYING to point out that there is a broader issue here - how to win an election and the week by week strategy of both campaigns is very telling."

jane m,

So, for you, the politics matter more than the actual performance of the administration in prosecuting the war.

And I had all the facts I needed when the administration defended themselves by saying that they didn't know what was where, when. If they didn't know they secured weapons they were warned about and which could be used against our troops, that's all the negligence I need to see. But I also agree that, in the context of thousands of tons more stuff they failed to secure, this one cache is only a symbol of something much more damning.

Still haven't answered my questions, have you?
Do you believe that much explosive was moved after the Iraqis knew US military units were in the area?
Would you volunteer to move that much explosive from an ammo depot knowing the US military was in the area shooting at things?

Back to WMD's. Well since you brought them up - slightly O.T., but here's a couple of musings.

If we decided to bomb every ammo storage point, they wouldn't evade the US Air Force - and Navy and Marines. Of course, Iraq had thousands of ammo storage points,and probably dispersed even more ammo in the run up to war. Spread things out so it is less likely all would get bombed. But specifically WMD:

(1) Bombing areas that have been suspected WMD storage points is a great idea, if you don't care if you disperse the stuff around the scene of the attack or in the atmosphere.

(2) If the stuff hasn't already been shifted before you get there, it'll still be there.

Getting old, guys. Chances of moving that much stuff after the US military was in the area - slim to none. Likely moved before the campaign started. Safer to do so, too, you don't have as many pesky American aircraft looking down at you at the most inconvenient moment.
Sorry the US Government hasn't obtained perfection yet. We'll try to do better for you. I know how much this is important to you. Snarking from the back-bench is, admittedly, fun, but if you really want to get into the front bench you have to actually put forth some analysis based on reason and the facts as we know them.
So keep trying.

Shep

No of course not. You are being obtuse. I'm just interjecting a political impact question into the discussion...it's impact on Nov 2nd. If you don't want to go there, fine. I'll take it to another forum for discussion later this evening perhaps.

OK, jane m. My take on the political importance of the story is that it places one more doubt in the minds of conservative Democrats, Republican leaning-independents and even the still reasoning part of the Republican base (all three of them ;-) about Bush's suitability to remain Commander-in-Chief. That may not show up much in polls but I bet it will on Tuesday - in depressed turnout for Bush. That’s why Rove and Co. are fighting so hard to make it go away.

My take is that the story is so confused and contradictory to the average non-wonk, that it's impact is and will be minimal. The average voter knows that the President doesn't personally over see the daily operation of the military unless his initials are LBJ and very few voters will spend their day off trying to figure out what the President knew and when did he know it. I exclude the left wing base (who do not seem to have the normal measure of common sense or any sense of the reality of war and the heat of battle) of the Democratic party from this assessment. That accounts for about 25% of the electorate and those folks will continue to jump up and down screaming "gotcha!!!" all weekend but nobody else (except MSM) will pay much attention.

This story aside, the voter turnout will be record breaking all over the country. There are three voters out there now who haven't decided for Bush or Kerry. Once cast, their votes will elect the next President. 8>] No suppression of the Bush vote will happen.

Very good nunya, very good.

Of course, I said when the US Army is in the area, not when they are 100's of miles away. That would be after the military had passed through the place. That's what makes the whole thing supposedly damning. That after we had the places we let it get looted of the explosives.

Loot this stuff? Well, possible, but who would loot this? What is this stuff. Personally, give me rifles, machine guns, ammunition, grenades, food , water, etc. This looks a little too esoteric for most looters. Terrorists? Quite possible, but they seem to have gone after more common weaponry, such as shells, RPG's etc. To sell on the black market? Could be done, a definite possibility.

It's possible the kind of guy who wouldn't mind going up in a suicide bomb would go through the place and load up a truck. I can't say how many people fit that description over there and what kind of preparation that it takes to get someone to that state. Still, I think it would be hard to round up enough of those kind of guys in that time period to loot those kinds of explosives. Can't prove, just speculating, but a little skeptical of finding enough of that kind of people.
For enough cash, though, you might find someone willing to risk it.

Still, I think it would be difficult to move that much stuff past US forces after they are in the area. I remain skeptical that the stuff was moved after the US military got in the area.

Accountability? For what? Things not working perfectly? You will wait a long, long time for that. Politicians, administrations don't often apologize. The only time you usually see that is when they are giving a resignation speech. It isn't going to be happening here. War, as you know, is a series of fubars. The fact that things don't turn out as you hoped is to be expected and part of what you put up with.

Truly the only unforgivable thing is not fighting for victory.

Time to go, the weekend awaits. Don't forget to set your clocks back!

John Irving wrote:
"And I see you'd have preferred the idea that Saddam remained in power. Diplomacy is a tool, not an end of itself. Of course Bush went with his intentions to the UN. If you're saying Kerry wouldn't, but would instead allow the UN say in American security interests, then all the more reason not to vote for him."

That's why I'm glad I voted for Bush and against Kerry. Myself, I would never have spoken to the U.N. at all except to say: Get the U.S. out of the U.N. and get the U.N. out of the U.S.. I'm against it.
The U.N.: "The House That Hiss Built"

Nunya says:

"Really now? In the midst of an invasion, chaos ensues and your telling me people don't loot? Again, think about it."

Questions re looting theory:

How do you surreptiously move 377 tons of materiel in the midst of an invasion?

Did the Ba'athists KNOW where the US troops would turn up?

To move 377 tons you'd need at lease 40 ten ton trucks or 40 trips with fewer trucks. Would seem to stick out like a sore thumb, no? Then where do they go with it? South? and hide it how? Or take it north to Syria? which leads me to:

That tricky question of airiel surveilance that troubles me - whether north, south or improbably, east. A convoy of 40 trucks would surely not go unnoticed. As incompetent as you seem to believe our military is, I find that thought a real stretch that a convoy of trucks would not be missed.

Further, you would need some heavy equipment to load the trucks or about 1000 guys to do it for you and that could take weeks without equipment and without speed the whole post-invasion looting theory is preposterous logistially. Again, why wouldn't airiel surveilance notice such activity at a known ammo dump?

I'm sure you've got answers. I'm just curious to see if any of it passes the common-sense test.

oh wait, nevermind, Nunya. I fell behind. The missing amount is not 377 tons, it's either 130 or 3 tons. Told ya' I was getting confused. Carry on jumping up and down.

No, I have heard so many versions of what was looted, I thought you would point out gleefully that they didn't run off with 377 tons. So if you think there were 377 tons, maybe you'll be willing to answer my questions. To make the looting theory plausible the logistics have to be worked out. We can't just accept every cock-eyed theory ya' know. I see lots of holes in your theories. Plug 'em up if you can. I'll listen. :)

It's very difficult to discuss anything with you, nunya cause you're all over the block with your accusations of lies. Ya' know everyone who says things that don't jibe with your theory isn't necessarily lying. Your logic could be faulty and skewed by your high emotional state.
It'd be nice to have a rational discussion with you. Okay, then...

jane m, transportation logistics requires some high order thinking, and a willingness to consider and evaluate facts. While nunya may be able to do these things, he'd rather just say "fuck" a lot. He goes for style over substance.

It's an artistic choice I think.

Just as I thought, nunya doesn't have a clue how is theory would work. All conjecture and no substance.

Yea, Dave, you nailed it. I'm done with nuuuuunya.

Nunya's toast.

gone?! the arteest?

funny, I feel like I just talked my congressman into cutting NEA funding.

it feels, good.