# IED's here we come



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... dig25.html

380 tons of explosives in Iraq have now gone missing. The lion's share of American casualties in Iraq are caused by IED's or improvised explosive devices, essientally a bomb strapped to some sort of detinator put on the roadside to kill patrols. The insurgents now have 720,000 extra pounds to put a hurting on our soldiers. Are you all still happy with how this show is being run?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I'm not happy with it I think political considerations are causing us to be too sensitive and its getting our people killed, hopefully they will get a lot tougher after Bush wins the election, if he does. This is one more reason his winning is important, if Kerry wins he will make decisions on the number one priority of all politicians (including Bush) getting re-elected. That won't be good for the soldiers.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

So re-electing Bush is going to cause him to protect our weapons/ammo/explosive dumps more how? I don't think anyone is causing him to pussyfoot around that issue because of the election. If he was smart he would have had them protected in the first place. This may very well lose him the election.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

This is not a new story, they were missing 19 months ago, before we actually moved into this area, this isn't going to mean diddlie sqat in the election, wishfull thinking though.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

So you condone the lack of protection on weapons which are currently killing our troops in Iraq? I honestly don't know how you plan to run a war with your head so far up your ***.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

MT you are so ignorant of the facts. These explosives were gone before we got in Iraq John Kerrys precious UN was supposed to be keeping track of them and didn't. How the hell are we supposed to prevent something from being "stolen" before we get in the country.
The whole thing is the good old liberal medias attempt to knock Bush right before the election unfortunately for CBS, NBC is telling the truth about when they were "stolen". Sort of, they claim vandals and thieves stole them, 380 metric tons of fine powdered explosives would take quite a large group of trucks to haul off. The same groups of trucks that were hauling off the WMDs. The same group of trucks the UN conviently didn't notice, the same UN that was being bribed by Saddam! You starting to get the picture yet son.


----------



## Buckshot (Nov 5, 2003)

Bobm,

Do you think Bush will take the gloves off after he wins the election? I've been waiting a long time for him to do so. Its sad that Americans have to die, because a quick lethal action in Iraq would be political suicide for Bush. I still have hope for this war and the Iraqi citizens and wish them the best. But is there not justification for wiping a city off the map. The reasoning was used in WWII on whether to invade Japan or not, personally I think the right decision was made.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

If Bush knew how to run a war properly he wouldn't have to worry about the consequences of a well executed plan. Unfortunately all this joker can execute is texas criminals.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 227337.htm
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/ ... .1026.html
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publi ... 2975.shtml

It was stolen After the US invasion. This is on our heads. Time to face the music.


----------



## nockbuster (Oct 17, 2004)

every thing Bush as done his hole life he has screwed up or run in the ground . some one always bails him out .i think he sould have to fix his screw ups . but not in this case . hes got this country this war and who nows what else there hidding so screwed up . some one has got to do there best to fix this mess that he has made . some of his top men were in the same position as they are right now during the veitnam war . just a little something to think about .


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

You should write Propaganda for the Democrats. youd be verry good at it, and im sure they would pay you oodles of money to say stuff like that in newspaper collums and on TV interviews! :roll:

How we can be accountable for guarding weapons that were out in the open long before we even go to the area is beyond me. but aparently it is not beyond those who are looking for more reasons to hate Bush.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Trooper, those weapons were under our control when stolen, else this would not be a big issue.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Mt the high explosives your talking about were not in our possession and disappeared before our troops got in the country to them. You need to research this you are wrong, period.
If you take a little time to look into it you will realize it and quit sounding like a nut.
Last night we get a report on NBC news that the explosives were already missing when *U.S. troops arrived at the storage location on April 10, 2003. * *The last time the IAEA saw the explosives was three months earlier in January of 2003*. There is no way to know just when the explosives were removed. *Sometime after the IAEA saw them in January and before American troops got there in April.* Obviously this isn't a case of Bush failing to "guard" the explosives. By the time our troops got there they weren't there to guard. In other words, nobody failed to guard anything and there was nothing we could have done about it. They were gone when we got there.

Well .. .hold on. There is something we could have done about it. We could have invaded earlier! Get in there before the Iraqis had a chance to hide the explosives! Is that what the Kerry supporters are saying we should have done?

This was a "get Bush" story from the beginning. There have been some problems between the Bush White House and the head of the IAEA. This was supposed to be the "October Surprise." Drudge is reporting this morning that CBS was hoping to run with this story on Sunday's 60 Minutes ... two days before the election. The New York Times beat them to the punch ... and, *unfortunately for the designs of the leftist press*, in time for the truth to come out.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Bob simply because our sources do not agree does not give you the benefit of the doubt. If you can give me a solid date from a reputable source on when our troops supposedly stumbled upon this empty weapons dump, I will believe you. Until then I will tend to believe that the reason that it is a major issue is because it was our fault.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Actually i heard that we were not yet in the area from CNN's website.

here are the paragraphs I was referring to:

------------------------------------

The disappearance raised questions about why the United States didn't do more to secure the Al-Qaqaa facility 30 miles south of Baghdad. 
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said coalition forces were present in the vicinity of the site both during and after major combat operations, which ended on May 1, 2003. He said they searched the facility but found none of the explosives in question or weapons of mass destruction. 
"The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility, but found no indicators of WMD," Whitman said Monday. 
That raised the possibility that the explosives had disappeared before U.S. soldiers could secure the site in the immediate invasion aftermath&#8230;

&#8230;She said the roads were cut off "so it would have been very difficult, I believe, for the looters to get there."

--------------------------------------------------------

Now admittedly the reporting journalist also states that the compound wasn't specifically guarded, but it was a complex of 119 buildings! it takes more than 2 men to guard something like that, and its not sound military doctrine to dismiss a significant retainer of soldiers to guard a secondary objective 30 miles away when your trying to take over a major Hub like Baghdad!!! how can you blame them for not having it guarded until after the town was secured (at least for the most part)???

Bottom line: this compound probably didn't have anything besides a chain-link fence for a border protection. You would have to guard the entrances, patrol the fences, and station soldiers at the doors of each major building! at least the 32 bunkers! That's another 2-5 men per building. The only way to keep this safe would be to post 3-5 soldiers at each gate (had to of had at least 1, probably 2). The borders going to be BIG, so your going to need around 15-20 solders to patrol the borders. Then your going to have to station 2-5 men in front of each bunker! That's a MINIMUM of 100 men! and properly guarded ( the way that would have shut up the Dems) would have required around 200 men! AND THAT IS LEAVING 80 BUILDINGS UN-GUARDED WITH JUST A RICKETY FENCE BETWEENE THE LOOTERS AND THE ORDINACE!!! Not to mention that you would NEED MORE men to relieve the solders on duty. There's another 50 men to help relieve the 200 already guarding this enormous facility.

Hey, we are the "Republican War mongers" remember? don't you think that such "war mongers" as us would know something about military tactics?

You democrats think this kind of thing just happens on its own??? Maybee not. But John Kerry does, as evidenced by his lack of substance as to HOW he would have done it. bush may not be the greatest Military comander, but anyone who know SQUAT knows that he is better at it than Kerry.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Mt pay attention to the news about it for the next couple days the whole story is a attempt by the left wing CBS and NY Times to sway the election and put the Bush team on the defensive. Its without merit and a story 18 months old where a NBC reporter with the 101 airborn (I think )stopped at the dump on the push to Bagdad. 
Politics is a dirty business and CBS above all is an extremely partisan organization which will say or do anything to advance its adjenda.
What ought to anger all of us is that a supposed news organization will lie to us in order to affect our countries future.
The story was supposed to be an "October surprise" and they botched it. Its been a consistant tactic of the Dems, starting with the indictment of Casper wienberger, then next election the DUI story about Bush in his youth and now this except this one didn't fly because NBC has already accidentally screwed it up for them. Pay attention to the news very closely these next few days and you will probably see some other damaging story majically appear. Its all an attempt to sway public opinion and regain power not a bit of truth in any of it. Just watch whow it play out it will be interesting.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

remember last election when the News anchors and corespondants were Screaming Red-faced at each other in anger when they got the news that bush won? those are the same people that still run the show. ust try and tell me they are not all Democraticaly biased, and ill send you the tape.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Bob you tell the next soldier who gets his leg blown off with those stolen explosives that it has no merit. These stories sure are meant to change the publics favor from Bush, because they are true.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

I'll go with the embedded reporter who was with the troops when they went through there, she said no HMX, or RDX was found at this location. I think the dems got them selves in some more stinky doodoo. Rather is free for some consults. I got money that this is going to backfire, just more proof of how desperate they are.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Mt you know damn well I don't think a soldier being harmed should be taken lightly but thats not the point of this discussion that fact is the story is bogus, without merit and a lie. Neither Bush nor anyone else from our side could of done anything about this loss because it occurred before we got to the area.


----------



## wingbuster (Apr 22, 2004)

MT, I am without a doubt uninflueneced by your comments. You are who you are, and with respect your are a Idiot. I have family in Iraq, and you have the audacity to blame our president for war, the progress on the war, and the ( so called missing explosives).This president is the first to be confronted by this type of warfare and responded with a firm and passionate response. The UN and the Atomic Energy commission are claiming the weapons were there, How convenient as they are under investigation for the food for oil program. President Bush did not choose to be attacked by a enemy that was offered to the Dems during the clintons term not once but three times buy sudan. Had the Dems (clinton) took possession of Bin Laden and dealt with him 9-11 could have been been provented. And as for Kerry when has he ever stood his ground? He is in the hall of fame in Vietnam as a Playing a major roll in defeating the US. How could any self respecting American vote for a canidate that chose to turn his back on his country. He (Kerry) has turned to attacking his apponents decisions, when he has never stood by one he made himself.....................Watch this blow up in the Dems face in the next few days. And last I can not help myself but instead of running away as a guest, why dont you become a supporting member????? You use this site alot you should support it mt,


----------



## SniperPride (Sep 20, 2004)

Blaming President Bush on missing explosives is insane, you know there are alot of people under Bush who make decisions esp in the military, nice attempt to bad mouth as usual though.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

SniperPride said:


> Blaming President Bush on missing explosives is insane, you know there are alot of people under Bush who make decisions esp in the military, nice attempt to bad mouth as usual though.


So who oversees these underling decision makers then? IE who is their boss?



Bobm said:


> Politics is a dirty business and CBS above all is an extremely partisan organization which will say or do anything to advance its adjenda.


Isn't there another partisan news organization out there too? Maybe even more partisan? :wink:

Voted today. Felt good. Now I can sit back an wait.

RC


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

"Bob you tell the next soldier who gets his leg blown off with those stolen explosives that it has no merit. These stories sure are meant to change the publics favor from Bush, because they are true."

Militant Tigre--Try to use more than emotional Appeals in your next post. I know its hard as you are a Democrat, but it does a beter job at convinsing people.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"You are who you are, and with respect your are a Idiot."

The irony in that statement slays me.

On another note, It is still being debated whether the explosives were still there when our soldiers arrived. One thing is for sure, we knew that there was a large munitions dump there, and took it as a grain of salt.


----------



## Gunner (Oct 30, 2002)

MT, they were all ready gone. My sources are much more reputable than yours--who do you think keeps your sources honest!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136745,00.html
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dat ... 5_nbcw.htm


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7307


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

On a similar note gunner, I'm not sure who keeps Fox honest either.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I knew it, I knew it, I knew it. My wife and I were driving through Michigan when we heard the news about the 380 tons of explosives missing. I said to my wife, that guy from Michigan will sucker again in the blink of an eye. MT your so predictable. Anything, no matter how ridiculous, you will believe, if a liberal says it. How many more times are you going to stick your foot in your mouth? Your perhaps a very nice person, but by now you must realize you have no political credibility left. You say you bring these things up simply so it can be discussed. Bologna, you believe it and bring it up as an attack every time, only to stand there with egg on your face in the end. Today I heard they will interview soldiers on TV, soldiers that have already stated that there was nothing there when they arrived. Our attack should have been more of a surprise. They had weeks to move everything out along with any thing else that was there. The hero of the libs (UN) allowed Iraq to keep those explosives after requests to destroy them. MT, like the old Stepenwolf song says, "if you fell on a pin you would go blind in both eyes".


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

missing arms

By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned. 
John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units." 
Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration. 
Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said. 
The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam's weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX, is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said. 
The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin, he said. 
Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita could not be reached for comment. 
The disappearance of the material was reported in a letter Oct. 10 from the Iraqi government to the International Atomic Energy Agency. 
Disclosure of the missing explosives Monday in a New York Times story was used by the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, who accused the Bush administration of failing to secure the material. 
Al-Qaqaa, a known Iraqi weapons site, was monitored closely, Mr. Shaw said. 
"That was such a pivotal location, Number 1, that the mere fact of [special explosives] disappearing was impossible," Mr. Shaw said. "And Number 2, if the stuff disappeared, it had to have gone before we got there." 
The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that the Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units during the conflict. U.S. forces defeated the defenders around April 3 and found the gates to the facility open, the Pentagon said in a statement yesterday. 
A military unit in charge of searching for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, then inspected Al-Qaqaa on May 8, May 11 and May 27, 2003, and found no high explosives that had been monitored in the past by the IAEA. 
The Pentagon said there was no evidence of large-scale movement of explosives from the facility after April 6. 
"The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd Infantry Division's arrival at the facility," the statement said. 
The statement also said that the material may have been removed from the site by Saddam's regime. 
According to the Pentagon, U.N. arms inspectors sealed the explosives at Al-Qaqaa in January 2003 and revisited the site in March and noted that the seals were not broken. 
It is not known whether the inspectors saw the explosives in March. The U.N. team left the country before the U.S.-led invasion began March 20, 2003. 
A second defense official said documents on the Russian support to Iraq reveal that Saddam's government paid the Kremlin for the special forces to provide security for Iraq's Russian arms and to conduct counterintelligence activities designed to prevent U.S. and Western intelligence services from learning about the arms pipeline through Syria. 
The Russian arms-removal program was initiated after Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said. 
A small portion of Iraq's 650,000 tons to 1 million tons of conventional arms that were found after the war were looted after the U.S.-led invasion, Mr. Shaw said. Russia was Iraq's largest foreign supplier of weaponry, he said. 
However, the most important and useful arms and explosives appear to have been separated and moved out as part of carefully designed program. "The organized effort was done in advance of the conflict," Mr. Shaw said. 
The Russian forces were tasked with moving special arms out of the country. 
Mr. Shaw said foreign intelligence officials believe the Russians worked with Saddam's Mukhabarat intelligence service to separate out special weapons, including high explosives and other arms and related technology, from standard conventional arms spread out in some 200 arms depots. 
The Russian weapons were then sent out of the country to Syria, and possibly Lebanon in Russian trucks, Mr. Shaw said. 
Mr. Shaw said he believes that the withdrawal of Russian-made weapons and explosives from Iraq was part of plan by Saddam to set up a "redoubt" in Syria that could be used as a base for launching pro-Saddam insurgency operations in Iraq. 
The Russian units were dispatched beginning in January 2003 and by March had destroyed hundreds of pages of documents on Russian arms supplies to Iraq while dispersing arms to Syria, the second official said. 
Besides their own weapons, the Russians were supplying Saddam with arms made in Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria and other Eastern European nations, he said. 
"Whatever was not buried was put on lorries and sent to the Syrian border," the defense official said. 
Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said. 
The director of the Iraqi government front company known as the Al Bashair Trading Co. fled to Syria, where he is in charge of monitoring arms holdings and funding Iraqi insurgent activities, the official said. 
Also, an Arabic-language report obtained by U.S. intelligence disclosed the extent of Russian armaments. The 26-page report was written by Abdul Tawab Mullah al Huwaysh, Saddam's minister of military industrialization, who was captured by U.S. forces May 2, 2003. 
The Russian "spetsnaz" or special-operations forces were under the GRU military intelligence service and organized large commercial truck convoys for the weapons removal, the official said. 
Regarding the explosives, the new Iraqi government reported that 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or high-melting-point explosive, and 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or rapid-detonation explosive, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, were missing. 
The material is used in nuclear weapons and also in making military "plastic" high explosive. 
Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.


----------



## Gunner (Oct 30, 2002)

Once again the liberal press is exposed for what it is--a propaganda machine for the Democratic party. Kerry bit on this story faster than a gadwall to a spinnining winged decoy. These boys remind me of Laurel and Hardy. Poor ole Edwards must be telling Kerry "this is another fine mess you've gotten us in".


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Oct. 27, 2004 - Iraqi officials may be overstating the amount of explosives reported to have disappeared from a weapons depot, documents obtained by ABC News show.

Bush, Kerry Making Late Campaign Push 
Touch-Screen Trouble 
Person of the Week: Complete Coverage 
The Iraqi interim government has told the United States and international weapons inspectors that 377 tons of conventional explosives are missing from the Al-Qaqaa installation, which was supposed to be under U.S. military control.

But International Atomic Energy Agency documents obtained by ABC News and first reported on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" indicate the amount of missing explosives may be substantially less than the Iraqis reported.

The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing - presumably stolen due to a lack of security - was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility.

But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility - a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.

The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.

The missing explosives have become an issue in the presidential campaign. Sen. John Kerry has pointed to the disappearance as evidence of the Bush administration's poor handling of the war. The Bush camp has responded that more than a thousand times that amount of explosives or munitions have been recovered or destroyed in Iraq.

Another Concern

The IAEA documents from January 2003 found no discrepancy in the amount of the more dangerous HMX explosives thought to be stored at Al-Qaqaa, but they do raise another disturbing possibility.

The documents show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility. Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted.

ABC News' Martha Raddatz filed this report for "World News Tonight." Luis Martinez contributed to this report.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Gunner, Your sources are Foxnews and the Drudge report? Please tell me your not that stupid to fall for their crap or are you? I bet you would like Rush to be your childrens godparent to! Remember he is a drug addict.

How can a program that is owned by a conservative and mangaged by a former campaign manager of G Bush be considered news?
Its a 24 hour infomercial for the Right.

TC


----------



## Gunner (Oct 30, 2002)

Amazing TC, we can say the same thing about the Liberal network media. Someone has to own it and may as well be a conservative since it's very apparent from the last 4 election cycles we have a monopoly on the Truth. By the way can you name me one national republican offical who is spewing the vitriol that Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Kennedy, McAulif, Gore, Clinton, etc, etc, etc, are? I didn't think so--we just make the public aware of Kerry's liberal voting record, nothing more. You Dems are constantly accusing the President of lying, misleading and covering up the truth without providing an ounce of proof. You've adopted Clinton's tactics of repeating a lie repeatedly and the public will adopt it as the truth.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Gunner what I find to be the saddest of all is that you really believe the sewage you spit out.

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny- ... -headlines
Actually give this one a good looking over.

The jury is still out on whether the explosives were there or not, but being that your candidate refuses to discuss it is a bad sign.


----------



## Gunner (Oct 30, 2002)

Darn right, you don't have to apologize when you're right--ask Bush.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Gunner, I guess you don't grasp the concept of the jury still being out. While still speaking in court terms, when the defendant has no response it is usually a sign of guilt or incriminating evidence.


----------



## Gunner (Oct 30, 2002)

Or letting the facts come out and feeding the prosecutor enough rope to hang himself.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Hey Gunner,

You asked if I could name one national Republican official who is spewing
the vitriol that the Dems are? Rush L is an advisor to Bush does that count? All of you right wing idoits are so stupid you fall for this wedge or hot topic bull such as religion, guns,gay marrige, to divert attention away from the real Republican platform is about. I got news for you If your a working stiff like most of us your not included the handouts that Bush has promised. The republican party, at the national level, is about being exclusive and favors that create wealth by means that lack morals. I know I use to be one of them! And for the record I'm not a Dem. I'm just a working sap that s happy to know my one vote is going to cancel out yours!

Bush has had almost 4 years in office, why are we not talking about the great job he has done thus far? Answer that righty!


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

"I'm just a working sap that s happy to know my one vote is going to cancel out yours! "

Sorry but you don't have near enough votes to cancel anything. ND is a done deal for Bush. Move to Ohio, Penn, or Florida and your vote might matter.

" All of you right wing idoits are so stupid you fall for this wedge or hot topic bull "

I love it when someone calls someone else and idiot and they spell it wrong. LOL


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Rush L is not a Republican official or an advisor to Bush. Where do you guys come up with this stuff? Do you simply make them up? I have never seen these points in print or heard it on the news. Just last week I heard Rush say he doesn't talk to Bush and gave him no advise unless of course Bush was listening to his radio program. From my point of view we are arguing with people who have no respect for facts. They jump on every rumor that comes along. The fraudulent papers about Bush's National Guard service, Bush was wired for the debates, the rumor about the draft, the missing explosives in Iraq, so numerous I can't remember them all. Don't get me wrong I appreciate what you are doing. You are setting an example of unfounded hatred for those undecided who read these posts. I am sure that will help Bush.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I wish Bush did listen to Rush :lol: we would all be better off. As for Bush everybody wants to blame the economies problems on him and the fact is the president DEM or REP has almost no influence on it. All the stuff that effect the economy is primarily stuff the private sector does. With the exception of 9-11 which is another thing that was developed well before Bush policies had any influence. 
Blaming the president for jobs ect indicates an ignorance of economics.
And with all that said the economy is getting steadily better, its also constantly changing, globalization will not stop so people have to look ahead at the jobs of the future and re-train, its just the way it is. If you don't do that you will suffer if you're in that segment of the economy. My job has suffered greatly because its heavily reliant on heavy industrial type work and thats going overseas for a variety of reasons that you couldn't rightly blame Bush or Kerry for. I am investigating a career change and if I can do it at 52 you can also. SO quit whining and expecting a job from government policies and get the skills you need to succeed.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Bob, thought you are correct that the president has no control over the short term economy, he is very responsible for setting up measures to improve the economy in the long run, say four years. Bush has not done this whatsoever. I do not expect the governenment to hand me a job, nor should anyone else, but I would think that Bob would know well enough not to put his hand back onto this hot stove, as he has already been burned.


----------



## Gunner (Oct 30, 2002)

Bob's point is that 9/11 created a negative atmosphere in the job market that we've only recently begun to overcome. Conservatively, a half million jobs were lost in the first month after the attack and 1.5 million in the first 4 months afterward. If you look at the economy over the last 3 quarters, it's the hottest economy in the last 20 years.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Unfortunately hardly any of these jobs are coming back where we lost them, manufacturing. The new jobs are mostly hospitality, such as flight attendants and hotel maids. You can't lose five 10's, and get back five 1's and say that you've broken even.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

MT do they teach any economics in school ?? Your assumptions about everything economic are incorrect


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

THE MYTH OF THE 'MISSING EXPLOSIVES': A SHAMELESS LIE

BY RALPH PETERS

October 28, 2004 -- SHOULD the United Na tions decide who be comes our president? *Sen. John Kerry wouldn't mind. He's shamelessly promoting the lies that the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency is telling about Iraq. *
A devious IAEA report suggests that 400 tons of explosives were spirited away by our enemies under the noses of our Keystone-Cops troops after the fall of Baghdad. The document just happened to be released in the closing days of our presidential election. Purely a coincidence, of course. Brought to you by those selfless U.N. bureaucrats who failed in Iraq and are now failing in Iran.

*Since Kerry's willing to blame our troops for a scandal invented by America-haters*, let's look at the story the military way, by the numbers.

*One: *The IAEA claims its inspectors visited the ammo dump at Al-Qaqaa on March 9, 2003, and found the agency's seals intact on bunkers containing sensitive munitions. Unverifiable, but let's assume that much is true.

*Two:* Faced with an impending invasion, Saddam's forces did what any military would do. They began dispersing ammunition stocks from every storage site that might be a Coalition bombing target. If the Iraqis valued it, they tried to move it. Before the war.

*Three:* Members of our 3rd Infantry Division - the heroes who led the march to Baghdad - reached the site in question in early April. Despite the pressures of combat, they combed the dump. Nothing was found. Al-Qaqaa was a vast junkyard.

*Four:* Our 101st Airborne Division assumed responsibility for the sector as the 3ID closed on Baghdad. None of the Screaming Eagles found any IAEA markers - even one would have been a red flag to be reported immediately.

*Five:* At the end of May, military teams searching for key Iraqi weapons scoured Al-Qaqaa. They found plenty of odds and ends - the detritus of war - but no IAEA seals. And no major stockpiles.

*Six:* Now, just before Election Day, the IAEA, a discredited organization embarrassed by the Bush administration's decision to call it on the carpet, suddenly realizes that 400 tons of phantom explosives went missing from the dump.

*Seven*: Even if repeated inspections by U.S. troops had somehow missed this deadly elephant on the front porch, and even if the otherwise-incompetent Iraqis had been so skilled and organized they were able to sneak into Al-Qaqaa and load up 400 tons of Saddam's love-powder, it would have taken a Teamsters' convention to get the job done.

*Eight: *If the Iraqis had used military transport vehicles of five-ton capacity, it would have required 80 trucks for one big lift, or, say, 20 trucks each making four trips. They would have needed special trolleys, forklifts, handling experts and skilled drivers (explosives aren't groceries). This operation could not have happened either during or after the war, while the Al-Qaqaa area was flooded with U.S. troops.

*Nine:* We owned the skies. And when you own the skies, you own the roads. We were watching for any sign of organized movement. A gaggle of non-Coalition vehicles driving in and out of an ammo dump would have attracted the attention of our surveillance systems immediately.

*Ten:* And you don't just drive high explosives cross-country, unless you want to hear a very loud bang. Besides, the Iraqis would have needed to hide those 400 tons of explosives somewhere else. Unless the uploaded trucks are still driving around Iraq.

*Eleven:* Even if the IAEA told the truth and the Iraqis were stealth-logistics geniuses who emptied the site's ammo bunkers under our noses, the entire issue misses a greater point: 400 tons of explosives amounted to a miniscule fraction of the stocks Saddam had built up. Coalition demolition experts spent months destroying more than 400,000 tons of Iraqi war-making materiel.

Our soldiers eliminated more than a thousand tons of packaged death for every ton the United Nations claims they missed. Does that sound like incompetence? Why hasn't our success been mentioned? Can't our troops get credit for anything?

*Twelve*: The bottom line is that, if the explosives were ever there, the Iraqis moved them before our troops arrived. There is no other plausible scenario.

*Sen. Kerry knows this is a bogus issue. And he doesn't care. He's willing to accuse our troops of negligence and incompetence to further his political career. Of course, he did that once before*


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Bobm said:


> MT do they teach any economics in school ?? Your assumptions about everything economic are incorrect


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 7435L1.DTL
http://www.massbudget.org/article.php?id=258
http://www.detnews.com/2004/business/04 ... 310993.htm
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releas ... 042004.htm

You know I don't make these things up, right Bob?


----------

