rushmc 23 #76 October 27, 2004 Quote >Kind of testy aren't we? I was kidding! The GOP really didn't say that. I just thought it funny that in a thread entitled 'liberal logic' someone said the president has never made a mistake. I know, it was time for someone to lighten up this thread! ThanksI had not thought of the irony though"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #77 October 27, 2004 Quote For me to respond to your post I have to accept your premise that Bush made mistakes, which I don't!....so I won't...... The only possible response to that statement is: Bwahahahahahaha....... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #78 October 27, 2004 Quote Quote For me to respond to your post I have to accept your premise that Bush made mistakes, which I don't!....so I won't...... The only possible response to that statement is: Bwahahahahahaha.... Where you been? I expected you in here long ago!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #79 October 27, 2004 Quote Quote For me to respond to your post I have to accept your premise that Bush made mistakes, which I don't!.... You truly believe this man has not made mistakes? I’m fairly sure he’s speaking of specifics and not in general. Also, anything Bush admits to as a mistake to the press will be used against him in adds from now till Election Day. Everyone knows that. If people ask, why Bush doesn’t admit mistakes, I’d then ask, why John Kerry doesn’t admit mistakes. If he really believes that the war in Iraq was a mistake, then why doesn’t he admit that he was wrong in agreeing with and supporting the decision in the beginning? All I hear is a bunch of rationalization. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #80 October 27, 2004 Quote Quote Quote For me to respond to your post I have to accept your premise that Bush made mistakes, which I don't!.... You truly believe this man has not made mistakes? I’m fairly sure he’s speaking of specifics and not in general. Also, anything Bush admits to as a mistake to the press will be used against him in adds from now till Election Day. Everyone knows that. If people ask, why Bush doesn’t admit mistakes, I’d then ask, why John Kerry doesn’t admit mistakes. If he really believes that the war in Iraq was a mistake, then why doesn’t he admit that he was wrong in agreeing with and supporting the decision in the beginning? You are correct. I do not believe he makes no mistakes. I do not believe Iraq was a mistake though!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #81 October 27, 2004 Quote You are correct. I do not believe he makes no mistakes. I do not believe Iraq was a mistake though! I knew what you meant. Just trying to keep the snipers down who are shooting at you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #82 October 27, 2004 Quote Quote Quote For me to respond to your post I have to accept your premise that Bush made mistakes, which I don't!....so I won't...... The only possible response to that statement is: Bwahahahahahaha.... Where you been? I expected you in here long ago! Having a pizza with some students.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #83 October 27, 2004 Quote You're right....I did make an error there in my statement. The US military didn't have direct control of the munitions. The UN did, they had it tagged, sealed, and inventoried and ready for disposal. Then we invaded, the UN left, told us where those tagged, sealed and inventoried munitions were and we didn't do anything to secure them. The UN left before we invaded, iirc....which means that there was time to load the powder up and take it elsewhere, as SH did with things like MiGs, and other munitions. As we are so often told, past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, so why not look at the reasonable conclusions rather than reaching for something to blame Bush with? How can we secure something when we're not there to do so? Can anyone explain that to me? And where was this story in 2003? And why bring it up as a current event now? Has Kerry even mentioned to the public that this happened in '03? If not, then his duplicity must be apparent to all but the dimmest bulbs.... Blech. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #84 October 27, 2004 Quote The UN left before we invaded, iirc Why did they leave? Oh, and according to the WSJ, the commander of the first unit on the scene stated that he did not have any orders to locate or secure any munitions at the site and when they arrived, looters were on the scene making off with stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #85 October 27, 2004 Quote Why did they leave? Because we were coming. But we weren't there when they left...and it's within that period of time that I think is the most reasonable time to think that something happened. From what I understand, the "stuff" is tons of loose powder, very much like talcum or powdered sugar. Looters coming in and shoving it into their pockets doesn't seem likely, does it? How much loose powder makes up 380 tons? A whole lot of pocketfulls, I'd imagine. It just doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable way to loot something in masse... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #86 October 27, 2004 Quote I’d then ask, why John Kerry doesn’t admit mistakes. The problem with being an incumbent is that someone can disect every statement/vote/action. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. Kerry hasn't done anything, so he is a difficult target. He has been offered a chance to answer the "what would you have done?" questions, but refused. Taking a position will open your opinions up for discussion. Having opinions would be too radical a change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,089 #87 October 27, 2004 >How can we secure something when we're not there to do so? Uh, wasn't that the stated reason for invading Iraq? To secure Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, even though we knew we could not do that on the eve of the attack? I mean, if you're going to say there's no way to secure anything quickly in a country of that size, great. But if that's the case - why did we do something that would surely result in the spread of terrorist weapons, including the WMD's he was purported to have? Seems like a foolish plan given that. >And why bring it up as a current event now? Cause the Iraqi government called us on it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #88 October 27, 2004 Quote Quote I know plenty who are both Democrat & Republican. Uhh...that's why I said that there's a strong correlation. It's not a "1" correlation. There are always exceptions. But, on these boards, it seems that the people who have a math/science background tend to be liberals. I have a very Strong Math and Physics background. I am an atmospheric Physicist for MIT. I happened to be a proud Conservative!!! When I was in "Liberal School" I was brainwashed too, but I got out of school, entered the real world and saw the light. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #89 October 27, 2004 Quote Looters coming in and shoving it into their pockets doesn't seem likely, does it? How much loose powder makes up 380 tons? A whole lot of pocketfulls, I'd imagine. It just doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable way to loot something in masse... Agreed, was probably hauled off in large trucks. Considering we had massive surveilance, satellite and otherwise going on, why don't we have any evidence of that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lummy 4 #90 October 27, 2004 jumping in late Quote I’d then ask, why John Kerry doesn’t admit mistakes I remember in the debates where Kerry clearly admited to mistakes, such as the " I made a mistake when I said I voted for it then didn't". Getting back to the point, if Bush came out and said "hey, we fucked up. WE thought there were WMD's but there aren't." He'd have won this election in a landslide (IMO).I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #91 October 27, 2004 Quote Quote If those explosives are now in the hands of terrorists, it is a direct result of Bush's actions. A lie again, they were gone before we got there, so says and embedded CNN reporter this morning. This story was reported just after Bagdad fell and is nothing new and no more than a political hack job. The reason these supplies, (powders only!) are missins is because France, Russia, Japan and Germany were under bribes to stop the invasion at the UN level and it gave Iraq time to move them as they had done before. The munitions were under UN control pre-invasion. The munitions are no longer controlled post-invasion. The critical factor of change was the UN evacuation. The UN evacuated due to an imminent US invasion. The loss of control of the munitions is obviously and directly attributable to US invasion. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #92 October 27, 2004 Quote The loss of control of the munitions is obviously and directly attributable to US invasion. Or is it INDIRECTLY attributable to the Coalition invasion and DIRECTLY attributable to the UN's departure? I'm curious as to how the UN had "secured" these explosives. Tag them and count them, then write it down and tell them, "hey, we'll be back to count these again so don't use them"??? Seriously do you think that the militants got together enough heavy duty trucks to haul off 380 tons of shit in however many days it took to the US to get there? Either way, the UN coulda easily said... "Hey, we're here securing stuff. Don't kill us. We'll meet you at the gate with the inventory lists." But they didn't... SURPRISE!!!Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #93 October 27, 2004 Quote Either way, the UN coulda easily said... "Hey, we're here securing stuff. Don't kill us. We'll meet you at the gate with the inventory lists." But they didn't... SURPRISE!!! Politicians aside, this wasn't a massive scale military masturbation. We were fighting against someone, not by ourselves. Do you think there's no chance the Iraqi forces would have killed them for collaborating with an invading force? Additionally, what duty would require those inspectors to sit in harm's way when their own governing agency was opposed to the conflict? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #94 October 28, 2004 Quote Quote The loss of control of the munitions is obviously and directly attributable to US invasion. Or is it INDIRECTLY attributable to the Coalition invasion and DIRECTLY attributable to the UN's departure? I'm curious as to how the UN had "secured" these explosives. Tag them and count them, then write it down and tell them, "hey, we'll be back to count these again so don't use them"??? Seriously do you think that the militants got together enough heavy duty trucks to haul off 380 tons of shit in however many days it took to the US to get there? Either way, the UN coulda easily said... "Hey, we're here securing stuff. Don't kill us. We'll meet you at the gate with the inventory lists." But they didn't... SURPRISE!!! The US instructed the UN inspectors to leave.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #95 October 28, 2004 Quote >How can we secure something when we're not there to do so? Uh, wasn't that the stated reason for invading Iraq? To secure Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, even though we knew we could not do that on the eve of the attack? I mean, if you're going to say there's no way to secure anything quickly in a country of that size, great. But if that's the case - why did we do something that would surely result in the spread of terrorist weapons, including the WMD's he was purported to have? Seems like a foolish plan given that. Plan? Plan? The only plan for the aftermath was to sweep up the rose petals that the grateful Iraqis were going to shower on our troops. That is quite apparent from the mess that this administration has ended up creating over there.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #96 October 28, 2004 Really! Big surprise here. Fox just said that Russian special forces moved weapons & explosives out of Iraq and into Syria prior to 3/03. They say it's going to break tomorrow on other news networks. Who woulda thunk it Kallend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #97 October 28, 2004 Quote Really! Big surprise here. Fox just said that Russian special forces moved weapons & explosives out of Iraq and into Syria prior to 3/03. They say it's going to break tomorrow on other news networks. Who woulda thunk it Kallend. Not our CIA, apparently! If true, it's another black eye for US intelligence.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #98 October 28, 2004 Quote Not our CIA, apparently! If true, it's another black eye for US intelligence. Yours is simply a diversion tactic to make up for lack of substance. The bottom line is that the credibility of this weapons story that Kerry is using as his keystone attack against Bush in the last week before Election Day is very lacking. The evidence is showing the probablility that they weren't there before the invasion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #99 October 28, 2004 Quote Quote Not our CIA, apparently! If true, it's another black eye for US intelligence. Yours is simply a diversion tactic to make up for lack of substance. The bottom line is that the credibility of this weapons story that Kerry is using as his keystone attack against Bush in the last week before Election Day is very lacking. The evidence is showing the probablility that they weren't there before the invasion. And what evidence has been presented to support the assertion that the Russians did it?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #100 October 28, 2004 Quote The evidence is showing the probablility that they weren't there before the invasion. I think most people on this thread have already stated that. Livendie summed it up pretty well: Quote The munitions were under UN control pre-invasion. The munitions are no longer controlled post-invasion. The critical factor of change was the UN evacuation. The UN evacuated due to an imminent US invasion. The loss of control of the munitions is obviously and directly attributable to US invasion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
