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
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)
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:
$100. Do we have a bet?
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.
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. 
)
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!)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
I’d say the conditions should be:
-
The President releases, OR the Vice President or Karl Rove release and the President fails to contradict within 72 hours,
-
A phrase which substantively (in the judgement of a BBQ Pit Mod) identifies the munitions in Al-Qaqaa as WMDs,
-
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?
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.
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:
[ul]
[li]The U.N.[/li][li]The WTO/GATT[/li][li]The IMF/World Bank[/li][li]The International Criminal Court[/li][li]The Kyoto Pact[/li][/ul]
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
Still contemplating my offer, Bricker?