READER COMMENTS ON
"The Missing Explosives"
(27 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 10:17 am PT...
Doesn't matter and it won't matter!
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 11:15 am PT...
If Rush is right and this was leaked by a UN official, I will be pissed. I cannot stand the UN. They are crooks (oil for food scandal). They are Jew haters (they always condemn Israel and never the Palestinians). The main reason I would be pissed is because I do not like outside money and foreign governments/entities trying to jack with "our" elections. It is insulting and encroaches on our sovereignty.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 11:35 am PT...
Paul, did you forget to read my advise before you posted? It seems so. Sigh...
By the way, Paul, can you name the Americans and American Companies listed in the Duelffer Report who were involved with the Oil-for-Food scandal?
(HINT: They were the Americans and Companies that were blacked out by the Bush Administration before the report was made public.)
And P.S. after what you've shown about yourself in the past, I - a Jew - would appreciate if you'd refrain from charging others as Jew haters. Your glass house is mighty breakable.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 11:36 am PT...
Brad, I vaguely listened to Rush, and when I got home I was hoping you would have a post on this...which of course you do (kudos on the speed.)
I read Josh's piece, but the part that disturbs me is that it was a story planned to be run right before election night as another 'hey look what we found.'
If as Mr. Marshall stated that there were so many differences in the reports, how could any credible news organization run a story without showing all points? Kerry mentioned it, and the mainstream media was planning on running with it. It shows to me that once again, the media is biased (on both sides) and instead of being reporters, like Josh Marshall, and trying to have an impartial view, they are trying to influence the election by having an editorial spin on everything.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 11:37 am PT...
Resolute in his unwavering, misled determination... stands firm in the face of certain defeat...
Paul, are you or are you not George Bush?
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 11:43 am PT...
Another P.S. for Paul - Please seen the "Toon of the Day" above this item. Remove blindfold before reading. Thank you.
Troll says: "the mainstream media was planning on running with it. It shows to me that once again, the media is biased"
a) Reality Check - who told you they were planning to run it "right before election night"?
b) Presuming your source (Drudge) is correct about the MSM planning to run it before election night, why are you simply accepting the notion as fact that "they would run the story without showing all points"?
You've got a lot of presumptions and "ifs" there. All speculative. And all presented by people who would appreciate it if you speculate precisely as you have.
As you'd implore others to do...consider your sources first.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 11:52 am PT...
They had weapons, they didnt have weapons. The war was good, the war was bad. We went in the war to early, we went to war to late.
When can we expect Kerry to make up his mind on Iraq? Before the election or is this a wait a see deal?
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 12:01 pm PT...
Our guys as the DOD don't really seem too concerned about he military. These are the guys who let the military (was this also the 101st) stumble across and open the sealed uranium at al Tuwaitha? The point is that looking for explosives requires a bit of a specialty. We also know, at least according to the AP that when the army first rolled into al Qaqaa they did uncover some storage bins of explosives. This was five days before the NBC reporter arrived with the 101st. If explosives were there, on a cursory examination, at the first arrival why was the facility not secured? Probably because it was not part of the Oil Ministry. Again, according to all the available evidence the explosives were looted AFTER our military should have secured the facility. The Iraqis claim it was looted after the 9th and there is nothing to dispute this.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 12:02 pm PT...
So not only could Bush have killed Zarqawi before the invasion (and didn't), but now his reluctance to commit the proper number of troops to the invasion has enabled these insurgents to lift tons of military-grade explosives.
Wow... freedom may be on the march, but competency took a header in the White House.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 12:58 pm PT...
TO my priginal point, it will not matter!
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 1:12 pm PT...
#1 rule in war - don't let the other guy win. That means keep weapons away from them.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 1:12 pm PT...
But shouldn't it, Paul?
Wouldn't it, Paul? (If this had happened under...oh, Clinton?)
Your blindfold is firmly in place. Best to keep it there, I guess. Since clearly, to you, supporting George W. Bush is more important than supporting your country.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 1:16 pm PT...
Paul, how can this NOT matter? Bush's failure to properly plan for this war has now enabled insurgents to obtain high-grade explosives. It matters to every man, woman and child who may die from future bombings executed with these same explosives.
And, dammit, it matters b/c it's another example of what a miserable job Bush has done. How many more examples need to come to light before the scales finally fall from your eyes, Paul?
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 1:17 pm PT...
People are dying - it does matter! These explosives will/have been used against our soldiers. Who knows where they will turn up and who they will be used against.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 2:19 pm PT...
Taking a different approach than the previous "catastophic success" line today Dick Cheney referred to the invasion of Iraq as "a remarkable success story." i think he's right.
If you happen to be one of the companies that raked in billion dollar contracts, Iraq is a success.
If you happen to be one of the employees of these companies who has been murdered, kidnapped or beheaded, its a catastrophic success.
If you happen to be one of the neandercons who has been pushing for this war since the 90s Iraq is a success.
If you happen to be one of the thousands of American military killed, maimed or wounded, its a catastrophic success.
If you happen to be part of the new regime that is enriching itself and friends at American taxpayer expense, Iraq has been a success.
If you happen to be one of the 20,000+ dead iraqis a catastrophic success.
If you happen to be an insurgent leader from Lebanon and recieved a reprieve before the war, Iraq had been a success.
If you happen to be one of Zarqawi's victims a catastrophic success.
If in April of 2003 you happened to come across 380 tons of powerful explosives this war was a success.
If you happen to be a victim of the insurgency, say a member of the American military, its been a catastropgic siccess.
If you happen to be a fundamentalist Islamist, the war has been a success.
If you happen to be a member of the new Iraqi security forces killed last week, not so much. In fact, Alawi today placed some of the blame of this incident with coalition forces.
Success indeed. This man is lucky his pants didnt burst into flame on national tv.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 2:37 pm PT...
It is a bogus story! It's one of Brad's famous beliefs - October Surprise!
It will not matter because Bush is going to win!
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 3:00 pm PT...
Brad, you are Jewish? I had no idea! I also understand that Kerry went to Vietnam.
I am a pro-Israel German and an adopted son of a Jewish carpenter.
No matter what you say Brad, numerous UN member nations are Jew haters and Bush has had to veto UN condemnations of Israel.
Ed Koch was good today on Hannity saying that Jews are breaking towards Bush for the security of Israel.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 3:09 pm PT...
A bogus story? Whatprecisely is false?
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 6:30 pm PT...
Brad - just because Drudge reported it doesn't mean its false. You've run stories in the past from him, and also claimed he is a liar. To give him credit only when he agrees with your point is a disservice to you and the readers here.
As for my presumption, I only need to look at the history of the mainstream media as of late. For starters:
a) running with with forged documents
b) trying to find out the "truth" about Kerry's Vietnam service by talking to the people who fought against us back then.
c) giving so much time to all the anti-Bush crowd
d) Peter Jennings claiming to not have the spinmeisters on ABC, then saying "we now go to political coorespondent George Stephanopoulos" after one of the debates
Drudge was just *reporting* like you feel that Josh Marshall does. In his report, he cited an executive producer of 60 minutes - Jeff Fager and a reporter at the Los Angeles Times - Elizabeth Jensen.
Can I guarantee it wouldn't have both viewpoints? Nobody can guarantee anything of that nature which they can't control. But if I had a gun to my head, telling me to pick one way or the other, I'd bet my life on them trying an all out Bush smear fest.
Again Brad, differences of opinion. Do you have any facts or evidence to show that they would show both sides of the argument in an unbiased way?
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 6:37 pm PT...
They Jewish community may be breaking towards Bush, but don't forget that John Kerry has some Jewish roots, dating back to his great grandfather - http://judaism.about.com...alogy/a/jewpas_kerry.htm
In reality, for whatever reasons, the Jewish community are more likely to be Democrats. Kerry will win the Jewish vote, although not by as much as Gore did, probably from Lieberman.
Around where I live is Dearborn, the largest Arab-American community in the United States. The majority wouldn't vote for Gore simply because of Lieberman. I've had numerous people come up to me and say something to that extent. They also don't like Bush and call Fox News, "Fox Jews."
On a similar note though - I'm Italian. I'm not running around doing what's best for Italy. I do whats best for myself, my family and friends.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 9:03 pm PT...
Paul, I'm so effing sick of you. Please, GRAB A DAMN GUN AND ENLIST!!!!!!
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 9:08 pm PT...
"Brad - just because Drudge reported it doesn't mean its false."
Man Troll...just this weekend, Drudge reported that one of Rupert Murdoch's son was killed in a car crash.
You didn't read about it because he took it down as if it never happened rather than offer a retraction.
When Drudge reports something it's either totally right or totally wrong, nothing in between.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 10/26/2004 @ 9:28 pm PT...
Can you believe the spin Bush is putting on 380 tons of some of the highest tech explosives known to man? By the way, do you remember Rumsfled saying that the ammo dumps left ungaured in 2003 was not a problem? I tried to quick search it on the web, but I can't remember the dates. Can you help?
Check out this web site it lists the US Oil Companies and Individuals involved in the UN Oil for Food Program.
Special Note: Oscar Wyatt is a long time friend of Bush41 and he donated about $500,000.00 dollars to the Democrats in 2000. Read the article and do some fact checking, the information will blow your mind. :O
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 10/27/2004 @ 6:44 am PT...
Jaime - he might take it down, but it'll still be in the archives. Look in there for it. He was probably given bad information about the Hendrich racing family.
"When Drudge reports something it's either totally right or totally wrong, nothing in between."
But its only right when you agree with it correct? There's only black and white, no gray area.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 10/27/2004 @ 10:10 am PT...
Watch Bush statement todat on the news. I just watched him on MSNBC 1:08 PM EST tell the people that a person shouldn't be President if they jump to conclusion about the evidence.
Although he was speaking of Kerry and the 380 tons of explosive, a quick clip accompanied about WMD's should bring home the point.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 10/27/2004 @ 11:35 am PT...
Drudge changed his NBCNews story about al Qaqaa. The original red headline was (quoting from memory) "NBCNEWS REPORTS: EXPLOSIVES ALREADY MISSING BEFORE U.S. INVASION OF IRAQ!"
Many of the details in the story he got completely wrong (some of which CNN then stupidly picked up) and he edited his text and removed a lot of the misleading info that ran all night and early the next morning.
Since he changed the actual .HTML page, I don't believe his original, unedited report would be in his archives. But you're free to look.
It's not that Drudge is always wrong. Just that he frequently is. Thus, when it's from a report written by Drudge, I do not report it as fact here, but rather will always indicate that "Drudge is reporting". You are then free to decide if you consider it reliable or not.
As to whether his original report was "right" is not a matter of agreeing with it or not, it's a matter of checking his *facts* against other contemporaneous reports, such as some of those pointed out by Josh Marshall which contradict the info Drudge was reporting.
Fact-checking. It can be done.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 10/27/2004 @ 12:00 pm PT...
Replying to an earlier Troll comment that I didn't get to, things are quotes are his:
"As for my presumption, I only need to look at the history of the mainstream media as of late. For starters:
a) running with with forged documents"
One outfit seems to have done that. Versus an entire Administration (Bush's) "running" with forged documents (Yellowcake/Niger) to development foreign policy and announce them in the State of the Union address. Hmm...Which was worse?
"b) trying to find out the "truth" about Kerry's Vietnam service by talking to the people who fought against us back then."
So you're suggesting that eye-witnesses, in another country, unaware of who is even running for President, are less reliable than folks who weren't even there?
"c) giving so much time to all the anti-Bush crowd"
heheh...Let me know when *that* starts happening! I guess we're looking at different media. I watch CNN, Fox, MSNBC and the broadcast nets. What are you looking at? And what evidence do you have to back your claims? (Because I can supply plenty to back mine).
"d) Peter Jennings claiming to not have the spinmeisters on ABC, then saying "we now go to political coorespondent George Stephanopoulos" after one of the debates"
True GS worked for Clinton years ago. But has been a reporter for ABC ever since and has uniformally won praise for his fair reporting. If you have empiracle evidence to show otherwise, please do (sort of how I've shown you *statistics* to prove my claims about Fox for example). Further, if you can show that GS was "spinning" for Kerry when he analyzed those debates, please feel free to show us that as well.
"Drudge was just *reporting* like you feel that Josh Marshall does...Do you have any facts or evidence to show that they would show both sides of the argument in an unbiased way?"
Marhsall does *precisely* that in his report, if you read it. He discusses the FACTS that are known about the issue and then interprets the possibilities for both the "Already Missing" and "U.S. Blew it" sides of the case. Did you read his report? Drudge does no such thing in almost every case.