Yeah, but if he were fighting Iranians, he would have wanted to scare them, right?
Danceswithcats, pop into the GD thread on the missing 380 tons of high explosives. There’s some interesting cites and arguments in there that you should probably read, as I believe that a lot of points you raise here have already been dealt with in there…
By the way, does anyone know where I can see the “Eagle/Ostrich” ad online?
Thank you for the invitation, Sir. Having read the entirety, it was everything I expected.
I agree that it is almost pointless to blame Bush specifically for the missing explosives, except insofar as the war itself was hasty and ill-conceived to begin with. Priorities were whacked. They made a major load of effort to securing the oil wells, but almost none to securing ammo dumps, toxic waste dumps, and the like. For that Bush deserves much blame because his adminsitration directed the priorities of the mission.
But all that gets complicated to explain, so I think it’s fair for Kerry to just go after Bush and try to score points against him about the lost ammo.
Maybe the first terrorist attack in America was the death of (pull name out of butt) Crispus Attucks at the Boston Massacre. This, of course, led to the famous lanterns in the watchtower: one if by land, two if by sea, and three if you were 30 miles past the border of Canbonada on the St Lawrence river in a swiftboat on Christmas Day, and four if there’s a passed ball. As soon as Paul Revere saw the lantern in the window, he hopped into his faithful four-door diesel steed and rode to Rio (with Bob Hope and Bing Crosby) to sell his engraving.
When the Bostonians found that Crispus Attacks was dead, they booed the third base coach (Red Sox fans being what they are, even then—they were busy lamenting that it would be another 133 years before they won the World Series). In the sequel it’ll all get traced back to George W Bush, where it will be known as the Shot Glass Heard 'Round the World. And that, dear readers, is how the elephant got his trunk.
Thanks!
I’d heard it on the radio but it’s hilarious with the picture.
Did anyone besides me load up that Bush ad just to see that lovely footage of some of God’s most sublime creatures?
P.S I don’t really believe in God, but no matter…
By the way, I think the DNC ostrich/eagle ad is totally lame.
Ostrichs DO NOT bury their heads in the sand! It’s a fucking myth!
That shot of the ostrich in the ad has been crudely altered to make it look like that.
:wally
Now that news sources are indicating the explosives were gone prior to the arrival of US ground troops I’m sure that everyone who bashed Dubya over it will be equally quick to apologize.
Bush sucks. Bash bash bash.
Take it to GD if you care to defend your position. Of course, you’ve already read that thread and you’re still trotting out this as a defense of Bush’s actions. :rolleyes:
Yep, CNN is basing this on an NBC story that NBC, and even Drudge, have already dropped. Basically, the army unit in question (with NBC reporters embedded) was only in the area for a “pit stop” of a few hours. They didn’t search the site, so were unable to say whether the weapons were there or not. This has been discussed in the GD thread. I’m sure you’ll be quick to apologize for your screw-up, though.
Having visited that thread, it was not a debate in any sense of the word. It was yet another visit to the ‘I Hate Bush’ clubhouse where folks of that bent gather to exchange stories about how Republicans kick puppies, drink milk after the sell by date, and other heinous offenses. A portion of the thread was how to rename the thread title for greater effectiveness. There was a discussion about how many trucks it would have taken to haul away the cargo, but wasn’t sufficiently interesting to maintain spirit. Poor unfortunate chappachula had the unbridled temerity to ask some neutral questions, and the dogpile was on.
Any mention that the explosives were gone prior to the arrival of US troops didn’t fare well in the clubhouse.
Defense of Bush’s actions? My post defended nothing, instead presented the notion that perhaps early reports were inaccurate regarding the timeline. Of course, you don’t want to think about that possibility, do you?
Fine, for basing an opinion on news available at the time, I apologize. How does that constitute a screw-up? If you post based upon a news source which later turns out to be erroneous, how is that your fault?
Because the error had already been pointed out in the GD thread, and a number of sites that have provided useful information on this topic, such as Talking Points Memo. Why are you still arguing this topic here?
And you asked you an apology for the exact same thing (what you believed was a flawed conclusion based on faulty or incomplete information) just a couple of hours ago. That’s why I used the same phrase.
Well, the fact that the GD thread had already debunked your info that you posted in this thread could be constituted as your fault. Especially since you already poo-pooed that thread as unworthy. Wontedly choosing that position is tantamount to self-inflicted ignorance. Your choice I guess, but don’t whine about bush-bashing when you’re being so duncical.
I have here a newspaper article warning that Sherman’s army is two days from Atlanta! Hide the women and children!
How about cutting danceswithcats a little slack here? (S)he did apologize, and is likely reformulating her opinion based on the new (to her) information. That’s quite refreshingly different from the response of some posters to similar situations.