Impeach Bush for the lack of security in Iraq

COL -

There aren't enough soldiers in the US, Russian, German and French armies combined to seal or secure the borders of California, where the insurgency in San Jose is a little easier to manage, let alone Iraq. Well, perhaps there could be if we took all of them off duty elsewhere, not too realistic a proposition.

Despite all the hyperventilating over the NYT article, what explosives or weapons went missing when is not yet known. Far more likely that they were either destroyed by bombing during the war, removed and hidden elsewhere by Saddam's thugs just before & during the war, spirited out to other countries prior to the war, or all of the above to some extent or other. The notion that we had the explosives under our control, had them lifted from under our noses, and that they are now being used against our troops has not only not been proven, it has no factual basis whatsoever. It's all just wild speculation, anything to get people foaming at the mouth, never mind the truth.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Man, you left wingers just swallow this propaganda unflinchingly don't you? Sheesh.

When you jump to conclusions, you often land in a briar patch:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136745,00.html

You lose Col Klink!  That pesky Hogan got you again! !

Reply #3 By: Dr. Guy - 10/27/2004 4:29:14 PM When you jump to conclusions, you often land in a briar patch: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136745,00.html You lose Col Klink! That pesky Hogan got you again! !

Your gonna get called on this dude. As far as some on this site are concerned Fox is biased to the right.

You tell the families that their sons and daughters were not killed by the explosives we did not secure in Iraq. You tell them we prevented the terrorists commig into Iraq from outside that killed their soldiers. You tell them we are in control of the hot spots in Iraq where their family members are being killed. It is not I that loose, it is them who have lost - BIG TIME! That is neither Right or Left it is a fact!

Nice try at diversionary tactics, COL Gene, but ineffective. You & blogic, in your eagerness to Gore Bush, jumped into the water without bothering to check its depth.

We now know that the NYT article is another failed hatchet job. Here are the updated facts.

The IAEA "warned" the US, not before the invasion, but in May 2003 just days before the US inspectors (inspecting for WMD, BTW) arrived, only to find that the explosives in question were already gone.

The NBC reporter with the first soldiers to arrive at al Qaqaa confirms that no IAEA tags were seen on any of the bunkers, locked or otherwise, that he personally observed.

The 101st arrived at al Qaqaa 1 or 2 days after the first soldiers overnighted there on their way in to Baghdad. One of those soldiers from the 101st has confirmed that many of the bunkers were wide open & appeared to have been looted.

It is well known that Saddam had actually dispersed weapons from such depots in advance of prior known or suspected threats in an effort to retain as much of the material as possible. He had full month to do just that before US soldiers arrived at al Qaqaa.

Kerry's own staff have admitted publicly that we (and they) don't know what happened to the explosives.

The allegation that 380 tons of explosives have disappeared on Bush's watch and are now being used against our troops is not only not proven, there isn't even any good circumstantial evidence to support it.

Yet Kerry continues today to spew the lie that Bush is responsible for 380 tons of explosives ending up in the hands of terrorists and insurgents for use against own own soldiers. This is the most despicable thing he's done so far, in a long litany of despicable things, knowingly perpetuating a false and salacious accusation.

May Kerry reap what he is sowing.

Cheers,
Daiwa

You missed the point of my Blog. I said the missing 380 Tons was the LAST revelation. The fact remains Bush did not send the number of troops needed to control Iraq after the fall of Saddam. We know the terrorists have been using the available explosives in Iraq to kill our troops. We know that outside terrorists have come into the country. We know that we have not been able to control the areas where the Saddam factions were strong and they have been planning and attacking our troops. We know that Paul Bremmer pleaded with Bush for more troops to mantain order in Iraq.. Thus, it is not the point of the 380 Tons of explosives but the overall lack of control which was the result of not having the level of forces needed. That is a BUSH choice that has cost Ameican lives! He failed to listen to the military leaders who knew what it would take to control Iraq.

Check out this link from today's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1337887,00.html

If this is proved, then Kerry didn't jump on a bandwagon, he's entirely right in his pursuit of Bush on this matter.

itgirl

I was as unable to obtain the link in the guardian from the URL you gave.

Great updates going on at dkos...go there.

drmiler, "Your gonna get called on this dude. As far as some on this site are concerned Fox is biased to the right."

You are right. I am going to call him on it. And it isn't just me or a few people on the left that thinks FOX is not only biased, it is a stretch of the imagination to call it news when 80% of its content is right-wing commentary instead of ojective reporting. As I have said over and over again...there are many people on the right and moderates who realize that FOX is nothing but a propaganda machine for the GOP. Rupert Murdoch (spelling?) who owns FOX has even admitted as much as well as his disdain for the media in general. FOX was designed to get out the Republican propaganda. Now that is ok, if you are at least HONEST about it. But to tout your network as "fair and balanced" while you are intentionally promulgating propoganda for the right is outrageous. Did you know that the "reporters" for FOX are TOLD WHAT to report, they are told HOW to report it and what SPIN to give it by the FOX executives who set up the network to present right-wing opinions as news. There is plenty of documentation on this fact and it was proven by numerous former news people/employees from within FOX itself and not some crazy lefty. There were actual and numerous memos from the higher ups at FOX to their reporters/employees telling them what to report and what spin to put on it. In most legitimate news agencies, there is some editorial and content control but that is usually in the form of production/time/ratings concerns. Reporters from mainstream media are not consistently and methodically TOLD what to report, HOW to report a story and what spin to put on it. If you really want to see an example of what FOX news is all about, I can provide you with a link (if you have real player on your computer) where you can watch a 30 minute documentary on the subject.

Daiwa, "There aren't enough soldiers in the US, Russian, German and French armies combined to seal or secure the borders"

Right. So you would think that this would have gone into the administration's cost/benefit analysis of whether it was worth invading Iraq over THREATENING to invade to get the inspectors back in who knew where all of this stuff was and had it under seal. No. It was better to rush into war KNOWING that weapons caches of high explosives and munitions were all over the country and KNOWING you had no way to seal off the border either before, during, or after an invasion? It made us somehow safer to have this stuff flowing over the borders like water to terrorist organizations in Iran, Syria, and god knows where else? I fail to understand why people can't see the error in that crucial decision. That critical analysis didn't require hindsight. It required good judgment.

Impeach Bush? You have a chance to vote him out next week.

i have read that Iraq may have moved them to Syria....with the help of.....the Russians?

Myrrander

I have done just that. Bush still should be removed from office for allowing our enimies to use the explosives in Iraq to Kill Our Troops! It is not the failure of our brave troops it is a Bush failure to provide the force levels needed to secure Iraq properly!

Col Gene: Let me make sure I have this straight. Your..."logic" escapes me I guess.

You blame Bush because we invaded Iraq and therefore weapons that the IAEA had tagged in January 2003 were no longer there in April of 2003 (or May 2003 depending on whom you believe) because they were either used by Saddam, moved by Saddam, or somehow (unlikely) picked up by "terrorists" in dozens of trucks and hauled off under the nose of US troops.

And therefore we should impeach Bush.  Because, in your estimation, it would be better to have those explosives guarded by Saddam than Bush.  Therefore, Saddam in charge of those weapons, where he can give them out any time he chooses to anyone he wants, is something you feel more comfortable with than having US troops go in to capture the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of tons of such explosives.

First, the explosives in question are not WMD. They are conventional weapons which did not in any way pose a danger to the United States prior to the Iraq War even in the hands of Saddam. China, Russia, Iran, et al all have such weapons. We did not attack them.

When we deposed Saddam, we failed to establish control in Iraq to prevent the explosives that were all over the country from falling into the hands of the terrorists and these expolsives have been used to kill both Americans and the people of Iraq. We did not secure the borders to prevent foreign terrorists from entering Iraq and they too are now killing Americans. We did not clean out the festering areas that are full of former Saddam supporters and they are killing our troops. The simple truth is that Bush did not send enough troops to properly secure Iraq and Americans have died because of his failure to prevent the violence the we see every day!

Reply #17 By: COL Gene - 10/28/2004 11:24:14 AM First, the explosives in question are not WMD.

No they were a WMD component! Get you facts straight! The missing explosives are used in nuclear weapons as detonating charges.

Reply #11 By: T_Bone4Justice - 10/28/2004 8:21:25 AM drmiler, "Your gonna get called on this dude. As far as some on this site are concerned Fox is biased to the right." You are right. I am going to call him on it. And it isn't just me or a few people on the left that thinks FOX is not only biased, it is a stretch of the imagination to call it news when 80% of its content is right-wing commentary instead of ojective reporting. As I have said over and over again...there are many people on the right and moderates who realize that FOX is nothing but a propaganda machine for the GOP. Rupert Murdoch (spelling?) who owns FOX has even admitted as much as well as his disdain for the media in general. FOX was designed to get out the Republican propaganda. Now that is ok, if you are at least HONEST about it. But to tout your network as "fair and balanced" while you are intentionally promulgating propoganda for the right is outrageous. Did you know that the "reporters" for FOX are TOLD WHAT to report, they are told HOW to report it and what SPIN to give it by the FOX executives who set up the network to present right-wing opinions as news. There is plenty of documentation on this fact and it was proven by numerous former news people/employees from within FOX itself and not some crazy lefty. There were actual and numerous memos from the higher ups at FOX to their reporters/employees telling them what to report and what spin to put on it. In most legitimate news agencies, there is some editorial and content control but that is usually in the form of production/time/ratings concerns. Reporters from mainstream media are not consistently and methodically TOLD what to report, HOW to report a story and what spin to put on it. If you really want to see an example of what FOX news is all about, I can provide you with a link (if you have real player on your computer) where you can watch a 30 minute documentary on the subject

And 90% of what you are spouting can be reversely applied to the big 3. NBC, ABC, CBS.

While I realize that Republicans have set a very slimy precedent in impeaching a president for nothing, I think that we on the left should perhaps hold ourselves to a higher standard. That won't be hard to do.

drmiller

I am a former Nuclear Weapons Officer. The explosives in question are NOT WMD. If fact most gas is not really a WMD becasuse to create mass casualities requires high concerntrations. They have a very limited area. The true WMD is Bio and Nuclear.

Reply #21 By: COL Gene - 10/28/2004 3:24:43 PM drmiller I am a former Nuclear Weapons Officer. The explosives in question are NOT WMD. If fact most gas is not really a WMD becasuse to create mass casualities requires high concerntrations. They have a very limited area. The true WMD is Bio and Nuclear.

You *obviously* didn't read what I posted! I never said they were WMD's by themselves now did I? What I said was that they were a "component" of WMD's They ARE used as part of a dentonation device. And I'm not that impressed that you were a Nuclear weapons officer as I was a GMT (Gunners Mate Tecnician) and dealt directly with the weapons themselves.

Spetnaz!!

PLINKO!!

While I realize that Republicans have set a very slimy precedent in impeaching a president for nothing, I think that we on the left should perhaps hold ourselves to a higher standard. That won't be hard to do.

You know, Myrrander, you exist on this site on your second life. If you want to revert to your JesusAscrunchy mode you know where the door is. I don't want this site filled with zealots. Feel free to go to http://www.democraticunderground.org.  I have no particular care who is on this site or not (left wing or right wing) but the zealotry is really getting old.

For the record, Clinton wasn't impeached for "nothing". He was impeached because the chief law enforcement official of the country (Clinton) lied under oath and obstructed justice.  Very much the same reasoning why Nixon would have been impeached had he not resigned (Nixon's "crime" was obstructing justice on the investigation of some low level operatives breaking into a Democratic campaign HQ).

As for Col Gene: I didn't claim they were WMDs.  But the fact is, Saddam could just as easily been supplying weapons of that nature to enemy forces that were operating in nearby Afghanistan to use against US troops. I feel much more comfortable with Saddam out of the picture than with him in charge of those weapons. You apparently disagree.

Draginol wrote

You might be comfortable that 100,000 lives have been lost just to remove one man who theoretically was some big threat to the US, but I'm not. That's some God-awful planning my friend.



Sure and I could be Queen of England. Unless you have some evidence that Saddam was supplying weapons to Afghanistan...you're rumor-mongering. Isn't that behavior more suitable among the Lacy Peterson crowd?