A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Rumours around the blogosphere is that the Washington Times (I know damn Moonies!) are going to pull an October surprise against Kerry on monday.
i know this are pretty good here. the highest number ever has turned out for early voting since it was started here in tennessee. now that doesn't mean that kerry will win the state, but i'm still glad more and more people are exercising their right to vote. but i know of at least four people in this state who have voted for kerry.anitram said:We're 10 days away, and it all comes down to voter turnout. If voter turnout is in record numbers, Bush is as good as burnt toast.
The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured, European diplomats said in interviews last week.
But the Bush administration would not allow the agency back into the country to verify the status of the stockpile. In May 2004, Iraqi officials say in interviews, they warned L. Paul Bremer III, the American head of the occupation authority, that Al Qaqaa had probably been looted. It is unclear if that warning was passed anywhere. Efforts to reach Mr. Bremer by telephone were unsuccessful. But by that time, the Americans were preoccupied with the transfer of authority to Iraq, and the insurgency was gaining strength. "It's not an excuse," said one senior administration official. "But a lot of things went by the boards."
sharky said:The NY Times story anitram mentioned is going to be ALOT bigger.
nbcrusader said:The NY Times is the real October surprise. Take one part old news, mix liberally and serve just before the election.
nbcrusader said:It appears the explosives were stolen during the collapse of the Saddam regime. Interesting how the UN sat on this information for months and months and issues its report days before the election.
McClellan, on Air Force One, stressed that the missing explosives were not nuclear materials, and said the storage site was the responsibility of the interim Iraqi government, not the United States, as of June 28, when the United States turned over the nation's administration to the Iraqis.
The senior administration official downplayed the importance of the missing explosives, describing them as dangerous material but "stuff you can buy anywhere." The official added that the administration did not see this necessarily as a "proliferation risk."
The New York Times report cited White House and Pentagon officials -- as well as at least one Iraqi minister -- as acknowledging that the explosives vanished from the site shortly after the U.S.-led invasion amid widespread looting.
anitram said:Where, exactly? I'm not seeing it on what are likely the 3 premiere leftist blogs (Echaton/Pandagon/Daily Kos)...
ETA: He's just been endorsed by the Washington Post.
We're 10 days away, and it all comes down to voter turnout. If voter turnout is in record numbers, Bush is as good as burnt toast.
nbcrusader said:It appears the explosives were stolen during the collapse of the Saddam regime. Interesting how the UN sat on this information for months and months and issues its report days before the election.
But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either.
nbcrusader said:Perhaps he met with them before he decided not to meet with them....
nbcrusader said:Security Council members deny meeting Kerry
Perhaps he met with them before he decided not to meet with them....
strannix said:
Gee, perhaps Bush decided to make the world safer before he decided that almost 400 tons of high-yield explosives that can be used as nuclear triggers weren't important to guard.
nbcrusader said:
Uh, yeah. I'm sure there is an executive order directing the military not to guard the explosives.
nbcrusader said:
Uh, yeah. I'm sure there is an executive order directing the military not to guard the explosives.
strannix said:Be filppant all you want. Someone had to decide the site wasn't worth guarding. Personally, I'll hold the Commander-in-Chief responsible. You go ahead and blame the NYT or the UN if you want, but don't be suprised if some liberal thinks they're more intelligent than you as a result.
nbcrusader said:
Wonderful arrogance
nbcrusader said:I'm not sure you have a full grasp of what you deem to be "facts".
And I would suggest sticking to the issues at hand, instead of going after individual members of the board.
nbcrusader said:Ah, back to the generalizations about conservatives.