Wouldn’t that be post-modernist as all get-out, irony wise?
Say it all washes out about a week after the election, turns out to be a total chimera, and say that QaQaagate is the tipping point, Bush loses one percent of the security mom vote and down he goes…and then it turns out that the fuckup that sinks his boat, is the one and only fuckup he’s not actually responsible for!
I would be inclined to consider this proof for the existence of a just and loving God.
Before the war, the IAEA repeatedly warned the Bush Administraion about the cache at Al Qaqaa.
The explosives were not removed from Al Qaqaa before the war, as confirmed by the Iraqis.
When US forces reached Al Qaqaa during the war, they noted the presence of white powder, but were too busy haulin’ ass to Baghdad to bother to secure the site.
380 tons of white powdery explosives subsequently went missing.
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = Bushies screwed up. QED.
You know, reading these sentences in isolation I’d almost think that you had decided to step back and take a look at all the reporting in the lead-up to the Iraq war…All of Judith Miller’s New York Times stories about WMDs or all the reports about how Saddam had “kicked out” the inspectors in 1998. Or, maybe it was all those breathless reports during the war itself of likely WMD finds that turned out to be nonsense but nonetheless had (along with administration propaganda) a large fraction of the American public believing manifestly false things about WMDs (which many seem to believe to this day).
But, then I look at the lines above it and realize that, no, you are merely complaining that the media are not even more right-wing lap-dogs. It seems fine as long as the media is making mistakes in one direction but if they make any mistakes in the other direction then it is a freakin’ disaster. (And, of course, you have lowered your standard of mistakes to the point where a “mistake” is defined as not going with the right-wing view of still-disputed events…and, in fact some events that are pretty settled except if you’ve been using the Washington Times and the Drudge Report as your sole sources of information.)
Man, did John Kerry miss an opportunity on this one.
Just think, had he not already said that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, he could have accused President Bush of allowing the terrorists to aquire them.
Anyways, this is just another example illustrating the disgusting and dangerous level of partisanship that is endured in defense of liberalism.
So, all you liberals who are shreiking, “Bush’s fault!!”, let me ask you. Did you hold Clinton equally accountable when classified computer discs and enough plutonium to make 150 nuclear weapons came up missing at Los Alamos Nuclear Labratory?
Removable computer disks keep going “missing” at Los Alamos, and have continued to do so well into the Bush administration. The scientists who handle this material get careless, taking the disks to wherever they need to work on them without taking care of the proper paperwork. Every time, the disks turn up eventually. There’s no evidence that any classified information has ever left the facility in this manner.
All the available evidence suggests that the “missing” plutonium is also the result of sloppy bookkeeping. I don’t think anyone involved actually believes that any plutonium has been spirited away by terrorists.
By contrast, the repeated suicide bombings in Iraq make it abundantly clear that there are plenty of explosives in the hands of various unpleasant people.
Wait a minute. Are you actually trotting out Wen Ho Lee as an example of espionage at Los Alamos? The man who, it turns out, was falsely accused? Who was convicted only of not following the proper procedures for handling classified material?
Thank you for providing another example that proves my point. Well done!
So I’m trying to understand the defense of the administration’s behavior in this case:
Huh?
Oh, wait, reporters say the explosives weren’t there on April 9! Liars!
Oh, wait, the reporters say they didn’t search, but they also didn’t specifically see the explosives there. So maybe they were there, and you can’t prove otherwise! Liars!
There’s no way that much explosives could have left right under the army’s nose! Liars!
Oh, okay, there are multiple witnesses saying that’s just what happened. Hmmm…
Those explosives weren’t very dangerous! Liars!
Maybe those dangerous explosives got looted, but lots more dangerous weapons were destroyed!
We can’t hold Bush responsible for every little error that anyone in the army does!
Okay, so maybe these explosives were looted in the days after the US first showed up at the site, but c’mon–you gotta allow everyone a grace period of a month or so before expecting an occupying army to, y’know, occupy. Those terrorists who looted the facility weren’t playing fair.
Okay, so maybe they got looted, but what if it was only 3 tons of explosives? Huh? Whaddya say to that?
Ain’t it just handy that the liberal media are releasing this story right before the election? Them and their Iraqi Provisional Government flunkies?
Yeah, well, what about some disks in a nuclear facility last millennium?
Look over there, a three-headed monkey!
This is called assymmetric debate: instead of occupying an argument and defending it, y’all are jumping all over the place, throwing up contradictory smokescreens that you don’t defend because, once investigated, they prove to be indefensible.
What does it take to get you to admit this administration made a mistake?
My apologies for participating in this egregious hijack; can we all agree (or at least enough of us agree) not to participate in inane and irrelevant conversations about which president dodged more draft etc.?
The issue here isn’t dodging the draft: the issue at hand is high explosives left unguarded.
In your out of date, fact-based reality maybe (henceforth to be referred to as ‘the real world’). But out here in ‘faith-based reality,’ or to give it its more accurate name, La-La Land, there is no such thing as a fact, just talking points to be shouted up or shouted over depending on their utility to the Leader’s bid to be re-appointed by the Supreme Court.
RUSSIA TOOK 'EM! Reported with glee, and no comment on the horrific and frightening implications of either finding out the story is true (which would mean that 1) Russia, though they refused to help Saddam during the first Gulf War, decided to help him prior to the invasion, and so is our enemy again, 2) the explosives were dispersed to at least 3 other anti-American countries, 3) they’re still missing, 4) our spy satellites suck), or finding out the story is false (Rev. Moon’s newspaper is trying to smear Russia and re-start the Cold War!).
I don’t generally post in this forum, getting enough political arguments elsewhere, but it was just reported that the Pentagon has satellite photos taken BEFORE the invasion that shows heavy semi truck activity at Al Quaquaa.
Perhaps some of the resident Bush-bashers should look before they leap.
) can digest this easier: The Iraqis say there’s no way for the explosives to have been stolen before the war.