Big surprise. Video of soldiers with Iraq explosives found days before the election.

[Agent Foxtrot]

Clickety. (http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?sid=315064&nid=104)

Bush & Co. are really pulling everything they can out of their collective asses now. How much do you want to bet he'll use this to suggest that he found WMD?

Adam

[Squink]

Clickety. (http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?sid=315064&nid=104)
...
How much do you want to bet he'll use this to suggest that he found WMD?
That's the same April 18th KTSP video we've been talking about over in Great Debates:
(Al Qaqaa: where the roadside bombs come from (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=282764))

Far from being an used to Bush's advantage, the Admin is really taking a hammering on it.

As regard to using the footage to show that 'Saddam had WMDs', David Kay, former US chief weapons inspector, former head of the Bush administration's search for WMD's in Iraq, confirmed that the powder discovered was high explosives, but when asked whether it constituted a WMD said:
(interviewer) AB: David, as quickly as you can, because this just came up in the last hour, as dangerous as this stuff is, this would not be described as a WMD, correct?

DK: Oh absolutely not. from here (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_24.php#003835)

[Bricker]

Clickety. (http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?sid=315064&nid=104)

Bush & Co. are really pulling everything they can out of their collective asses now. How much do you want to bet he'll use this to suggest that he found WMD?

Adam

$100. Do we have a bet?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

$100. Do we have a bet?

The man is pathological! :)

[Bricker]

The man is pathological! :)

Heh. No, this offer is for rhetorical effect. (Although of course I'd take it!) But it was just a way of rubbing the OP's nose in the wrongness of his initial assumption.

[Early Out]

Well, I'm certainly relieved to know that Bricker has not, in fact, been kidnapped and replaced by a convincing, if confusing, substitute. (Which thread gave rise to that suspicion? I can't find it now. :D )

[Apos]

What's really stupid is the way that the right wing screech machine is screaming about this story being an October Surprise. But the reality is that this is just one more story in a long line of unbroken stories about how the Iraq operation was screwed up by poor or non-existent planning. But there's nothing special about this story in particular, or its timing. It's just one more drop in the bucket that happens to be getting special attention because the election is close. Same with the latest Al Qaeda video that drudge keeps playing up (ABC attempts to bury Al Qaeda de-endorsement of Bush by handing tape over to the FBI and CIA, surely the best place to hide it from the Bush campaign!)

[Jonathan Chance]

Well, I have to admit that I think the timing of this one is somewhat iffy, especially the scheduling of the 60 Minutes thing and that having been blown out.

But feh. This appears to have some sort of legs because of the way the story has developed. Certainly the adminstrations original rebuttal looks a bit weak given that new revelations.

But we'll see in a few days if anyone cares.

[Apos]

The problem is: what timing? 60 minutes and other news programs have been doing ongoing coverage of the disasters our policies have wrought. This is not some radical last minute change of direction in coverage.

[duffer]

Isn't this footage now released from a Twin Cities station? I've always seen the area as just a shade less liberal than Boston, San Jose and San Francisco. Why would they sit on it to help Bush? What am I missing in this argument?

[PatriotX]

This appears to have some sort of legs because of the way the story has developed. Certainly the adminstrations original rebuttal looks a bit weak given that new revelations. I agree, this is the crux of the biscuit. If the Admin'd just come out and said we weren't able to secure everything and just pushed the it's-but-a-tiny-fraction-of what-we-destroyed angle I think this would've died.

However, since the gone-b4-we-got-there angle (and especially the Reds-are-in-on-it angle pimped by someone of whom "it isn't clear how this person has the authority or the knowledge to speak on such a matter") received play it makes the Admin look like they don't know what's going on. Consider that they were originally citing a newsreport to bolster their nothing-to-see-here position. A news report instead of say an official report from a military source. These guys are expected to have access to the goods that news reporter only wish they had when it comes to finding out what's going on in Iraq.

Charitably, they look like they don't know what was going on. Uncharitably, they look like they're trying to snow the electorate.
What the fuck's up with releasing that picture of trucks with the official comments being,
"We take no view of the purpose of these trucks. All we're saying is this is two big trucks in front of a bunker."
Rumsfeld comes up with another gem discussing whether or not the looting happened pre or post invasion,
"I think is at least debatable."
Definitely not the voice of somone who knows the facts we expect these guys to know about Iraq (unless one posits that he knows that the looting was post invasion and is playing word games).

It's like the steam has gone out of them. No more pretenses of niceties. I don't feel like they even wanna kiss us, let alone give us a reach around anymore.



Also of note is the impact on the blogosphere where this story has been cast as iron-clad evidence the evil LMSM conspiracy against us.

[NurseCarmen]

Isn't this footage now released from a Twin Cities station? I've always seen the area as just a shade less liberal than Boston, San Jose and San Francisco. Why would they sit on it to help Bush? What am I missing in this argument?5 isn't really seen as a liberal station locally. Quite the opposite. The owner, Stanley Hubbard, is a big donater (http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php?search=1&type=name&lname=HUBBARD&fname=STANLEY) to the Republican party. Locally, 5 has been really trying to make a name for itself as a News channel, not fluffy non news as the other stations. And to Stanley's credit, they have been a bit better at reporting news than the other locals.

5 wasn't sitting on anything. The Al Qaaqaa story had been out a couple days prior to their report. All that happened at 5 is that the 2 reporters that were embedded recalled that they were in the vacinity, then went back and looked at their tape. Sure enough, the tape, photos, and GPS records confirmed their recollections.

[PatriotX]

The problem is: what timing? 60 minutes and other news programs have been doing ongoing coverage of the disasters our policies have wrought. This is not some radical last minute change of direction in coverage.
Apparently, Blix was sitting on the info. It was those freedom-loving-patriots in Iraq, stewards of Iraqi government posts, who brought this matter up at this point in time.

[Apos]

This soldier circus is even goofier: he basically had almost nothing to say that was relevant to the actual issues at hand.

Simon raises a pretty telling point: instead of saying "No, Kerry's wrong because we know what happened to those explosives: they were gone when we inventoried the site" they said "we dunno.... wait, one of those unreliable liberal media organizations says that they didn't see any explosives, so they weren't there!"

Worse, we seem to be forgetting that part of this story is that the Iraqis who originally brought it to light said that the U.S. had been pressuring them NOT to report it to the IAEA.

That's bad. Because we are required to report anything we know about what happens to this stuff to the IAEA. Even if, ESPECIALLY if we supposedly destroyed it. Destroying stuff and not documenting and reporting the destruction is precisely one of the things that the U.N. was holding against Saddam in the first place.

[Fear Itself]

$100. Do we have a bet?I'd like a piece of that action, if it's not too late...

[Bricker]

I'd like a piece of that action, if it's not too late...

Not too late - but let's define our terms.

This can't be open-ended -- in other words, if we get to March 2005 and I point out that the administration hasn't claimed these explosives constitute "weapons of mass destruction," you cannot say, "Well, they will, just you wait."

So - what's the end point, the date after which, if it hasn't happened, you agree that you've lost?

And specifically what has to happen? The post I responded to says: Bush & Co. are really pulling everything they can out of their collective asses now. How much do you want to bet he'll use this to suggest that he found WMD?


To make this true, I'd propose that someone in a public-speaking or policy-making role for the administration publicly makes this statement: that the cache of high explosives constitute a weapon of mass destruction. It's not sufficient for a blogger, or a Rush Limbaugh, to make the claim. To win, you've got to be able to point out the statement of someone who speaks for the administration, making this claim, by the end-date we agree upon.

And I'd say that January 20, 2005, is a good end-date. After that, the President has no interest in ensuring another term.

What say you?

- Rick

[Jurph]

I'd say the conditions should be:

1. The President releases, OR the Vice President or Karl Rove release and the President fails to contradict within 72 hours,

2. A phrase which substantively (in the judgement of a BBQ Pit Mod) identifies the munitions in Al-Qaqaa as WMDs,

3. which statement is made by 12:01am on 3 November (and which statement, if not made by the President, the President does not contradict before 12:01am on 6 November).

So, the statement, once judged valid by a mod, must be made by the President or one of his minions before 3 November, and if released by a minion, must remain unopposed by the President for 72 hours.

Sound fair?

[Fear Itself]

1/20/05 is acceptable. I would include statements made by featured speakers at official campaign events. If that is acceptable to you, we have a bet.

[GaWd]

Worse, we seem to be forgetting that part of this story is that the Iraqis who originally brought it to light said that the U.S. had been pressuring them NOT to report it to the IAEA.

That's bad. Because we are required to report anything we know about what happens to this stuff to the IAEA.

Actually, if you know anyone who's a hardcore Libertarian and siding with Bush, or a hardcore Republican at heart, they shirk any accountability to international organizations/institutions/treaties. This include, but is not limited to:


The U.N.
The WTO/GATT
The IMF/World Bank
The International Criminal Court
The Kyoto Pact


Knowing this, you can bet that most of those people will get major wood when the President defies an organization like the IAEA.

I mean, we've already decided to push the envelope on our non-proliferation treaties and test bans WRT Nukes, why report anything to the IAEA? We don't gots to report to no one! We be the Yeeeewnited States.

Sam

[Fear Itself]

What say you?Still contemplating my offer, Bricker?

[Fear Itself]

What's the matter Bricker, cat got your tongue?

Buk-Buk-BuGAAWWKK!!!

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

Isn't this footage now released from a Twin Cities station? I've always seen the area as just a shade less liberal than Boston, San Jose and San Francisco. Why would they sit on it to help Bush? What am I missing in this argument?


5 isn't really seen as a liberal station locally. Quite the opposite. The owner, Stanley Hubbard, is a big donater to the Republican party. Locally, 5 has been really trying to make a name for itself as a News channel, not fluffy non news as the other stations. And to Stanley's credit, they have been a bit better at reporting news than the other locals.

5 wasn't sitting on anything. The Al Qaaqaa story had been out a couple days prior to their report. All that happened at 5 is that the 2 reporters that were embedded recalled that they were in the vacinity, then went back and looked at their tape. Sure enough, the tape, photos, and GPS records confirmed their recollections.


In addition to what NurseCarmen said, KSTP radio is home to the far-right screech boxes who infect our airwaves. The lone anchor of the TV newscast is the former spokesperson for Republican Governor Carlson and the newscasts have taken a decidedly conservative slant in the last few months. You would have to look far and wide to find a station with more impeccable right-wing credentials than KSTP.

I don't get what duffer is saying. Is the city a story originates from now relevant to it's credibility?

[rjung]

That seems to be the favorite meme of the Bush-voting apologists these days -- anyone which paints a less-than-flattering portrait of George W. Bush is obviously a part of the Vasat Liberal Conspiracy and has the credibility of a drunken wino muttering to his hallucinations.

[Apos]

I don't get what duffer is saying. Is the city a story originates from now relevant to it's credibility?

He's saying that if it's from the wrong city, it's actually not real footage, but some sort of Disney production.

[RTFirefly]

What's the matter Bricker, cat got your tongue?

Buk-Buk-BuGAAWWKK!!!
I don't know why Bricker hasn't responded. But it's not for want of courage. He's not at all afraid to back his convictions, either in debate or with cash, as is appropriate.

[Bricker]

1/20/05 is acceptable. I would include statements made by featured speakers at official campaign events. If that is acceptable to you, we have a bet.

Done.

[Bricker]

What's the matter Bricker, cat got your tongue?

Buk-Buk-BuGAAWWKK!!!

I was away from the boards all day, on a shopping trip to let Mrs. Bricker burn holes in the credit card at Rehoboth's outlet stores.

I trust my return and subsequent response is satisfactory.

[Fear Itself]

I'm not sure; does this mean you agree to my terms, and we have a wager?

[Fear Itself]

Sorry, didn't see the preceding "Done".

Well, looky here (http://slate.com/id/2108852/):For Slate by By Chris Suellentrop
Updated Thursday, Oct. 28, 2004, at 10:44 PM PT
PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla

Because I've been traveling "outside the bubble" of the campaign planes for the past week, I arrived at a Thursday rally for Laura Bush before it began, and I sat with the local press. For only the second time, I witnessed a Bush campaign event in full.

[snip]

But the second-most memorable event was a remarkably mendacious speech given by U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, a Republican from Florida's 16th District.

[snip]

The main target of Foley's attack was Kerry's criticism of the president for allowing the al-Qaqaa weapons dump to be looted, presumably by terrorists, during a war that was designed precisely to prevent such an event from occurring. "The senator from Massachusetts immediately grabbed onto that without doing any checking, any fact-checking. He didn't even call Dan Rather," Foley said. But "NBC News followed up saying, oh-ho, not so fast. We don't have all the facts yet. Yet he went on national TV and announced, with reckless disregard for the facts, that somehow during George Bush's administration, these weapons were stolen."

[snip]

Foley continued, "Well, folks, one thing it does prove: There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before we went there."

Chris Suellentrop is Slate's deputy Washington bureau chief.I take PayPal.

[ExTank]

Fear Itself:

1/20/05 is acceptable. I would include statements made by featured speakers at official campaign events. If that is acceptable to you, we have a bet.

My first reaction was: Whattayou, !@#$% nuts? :)

I don't know why in the Hell anyone would agree to this. It's hard enough to anticipate what a mere hadfull of damnfool ijits (let lone one known as GeeDubya) will say; but toss in the whole gaggle of damnfool ijits your conditions allow?

I say Bricker can beg off on temporary insanity, brought about by his rapidly diminishing credit line from a day of retail shopping with the wife. :p

Though to be fair, Foley isn't actually claiming that they found WMD based on the presence of the explosives; just that they indicate that Iraq []ihad[/i] WMD prior to our arrival.

It's a fine hair, to be sure, and I don't know how many ways that it can be split. But you can be sure that someone is going to try. ;)

[Bricker]

That was foolish of me.

When I read "featured speakers at Bush campaign events," in response to my requirement that someone in a public-speaking or policy-making role for the administration publicly makes this statement, I somehow imagined this as featured speakers at events at which BUSH appears, not every single Republican rally anywhere in the country.

However, that's not what the plain text says, and I agree I lost the bet - send me your Pay-pal info.

I do NOT agree that merely because of my incautious acceptance of much broader terms than I wanted, that I have lost the POINT: that the administration itself is making this claim. I lost the bet because some GOP congresscritter took it on himself to make the calim, on a stage, stumping for Bush. This is not what I intended to disprove.

[Larry Mudd]

That was foolish of me.And that was gentlemanly of you.

[World Eater]

Haha, that was quick.

I say Rick gets another chance, that was sort of tricky.

[Fear Itself]

However, that's not what the plain text says, and I agree I lost the bet - send me your Pay-pal info.Aw gee, why'd you have to go and ruin everything by getting all honorable, and simultaneously make me look like the heel because I somehow took advantage of you? Ruined a perfectly good pit rant I had prepared for any whining or welshing. Damn the luck!

I suppose in order to maintain my own honor, I must offer you a chance to redeem yourself. What say, double or nothing on the outcome of the election? I warn you, you'd better be clear on the terms this time, I'm not likely to so forebearing twice. I pick Kerry...

Or you could just make a donation to my favorite charity (https://www.democrats.org/support/kerry.html?dsc=NETA250) right now...

[Bricker]

Aw gee, why'd you have to go and ruin everything by getting all honorable, and simultaneously make me look like the heel because I somehow took advantage of you? Ruined a perfectly good pit rant I had prepared for any whining or welshing. Damn the luck!

I'm not a whiner or a welsher. :D


I suppose in order to maintain my own honor, I must offer you a chance to redeem yourself. What say, double or nothing on the outcome of the election? I warn you, you'd better be clear on the terms this time, I'm not likely to so forebearing twice. I pick Kerry...

Or you could just make a donation to my favorite charity (https://www.democrats.org/support/kerry.html?dsc=NETA250) right now...

I was considering the charity option, until I clicked it. *shudder*

Yes, I'll take you up on your double-or-nothing bet. $200 to you if Kerry wins, zero balance if Bush wins.

[Bricker]

I'm not a whiner or a welsher. :D



I was considering the charity option, until I clicked it. *shudder*

Yes, I'll take you up on your double-or-nothing bet. $200 to you if Kerry wins, zero balance if Bush wins.

Wins the Presidency. We're not talking popular vote. If the EC ties and Bush wins in the House, then Bush wins. Etc.

[RedFury]

Wins the Presidency. We're not talking popular vote. If the EC ties and Bush wins in the House, then Bush wins. Etc.

What happens if he loses the popular vote and gets appointed by the SC?

Not that something as outrageous as that could happen outside of a Banana Republic of course, just playing Devil's Advocate...

[Fear Itself]

Wins the Presidency. We're not talking popular vote. If the EC ties and Bush wins in the House, then Bush wins. Etc.What ever you say, but it sounds like you don't have a lot of confidence in your man. It would be like me including the option to call the whole thing off if Bush suspends the Constitution, declares himself King for Life and refuses to leave the White House. Which.. is.. just.. ridiculous? Hmmm...

[Lok]

So what about if John Edwards becomes acting President? Not as far fetched as it seems in the present electoral situation. :D