377 Tons!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/


Well, I think in tort cases that would be known as Criminal Negligence
wouldn't it? Counselors?

All I can figure is that prosthetics manufacturers must be big GOP
contributors.


g.c.

"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/


Well, I think in tort cases that would be known as Criminal Negligence
wouldn't it? Counselors?

All I can figure is that prosthetics manufacturers must be big GOP
contributors.

Aww, give the president a break. All the troops were busy guarding the
ministry of oil, and Bush was too busy pretending to have a plan.

If he gets reelected, I suggest we start impeachment proceedings.

--riverman

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:10:12 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/


Well, I think in tort cases that would be known as Criminal Negligence
wouldn't it? Counselors?

All I can figure is that prosthetics manufacturers must be big GOP
contributors.

Have you been taking figuring lessons from Katiestar? You might not want to
fall into the same hole Kerry has fallen into (albeit his campaign seemingly
doesn't realize it yet, either). Of course, the Bush campaign (as opposed to the
administration) isn't helping itself with its responses, either.

I wondered how long it would take for someone to bring this up...IF 377 tons of
explosives are, in fact, missing, and there is some question about how much was
truly there, it appears it was missing prior to any coalition forces being able
to secure it. It seems there was an NBC crew "embedded" with a unit that went
to Al Qa Qaa in early April, and moreover, there are all sorts of (news and
military) reports about units at Al Qa Qaa in April 2003. But more importantly,
there's no way to know if the explosives were there prior to something like a
year before the war. The stuff was under UN/IAEA seal (essentially, a wire and
crimp), hadn't been "eyeballed" by them for some time before the war, and Saddam
regularly moved this stuff around (also in reports).

IMO, if there is negligence, it was the UN and IAEA for not insisting that this
stuff be secured better (or even destroyed). If the "Dems"/Kerry are now so hot
about this potentially dangerous stuff, why weren't they raising hell about
Saddam keeping, making, and having thousands of tons of this stuff with nothing
more than a wire and crimp on it? And then, there's El baradei - if you figure
he isn't playing politics with the timing and language, you're relying on those
figuring lesson from Katiemuskie again....

TC,
R

g.c.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:10:12 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/


Well, I think in tort cases that would be known as Criminal Negligence
wouldn't it? Counselors?

All I can figure is that prosthetics manufacturers must be big GOP
contributors.

Have you been taking figuring lessons from Katiestar? You might not want to
fall into the same hole Kerry has fallen into (albeit his campaign seemingly
doesn't realize it yet, either). Of course, the Bush campaign (as opposed to the
administration) isn't helping itself with its responses, either.

I wondered how long it would take for someone to bring this up...IF 377 tons of
explosives are, in fact, missing, and there is some question about how much was
truly there, it appears it was missing prior to any coalition forces being able
to secure it. It seems there was an NBC crew "embedded" with a unit that went
to Al Qa Qaa in early April, and moreover, there are all sorts of (news and
military) reports about units at Al Qa Qaa in April 2003. But more importantly,
there's no way to know if the explosives were there prior to something like a
year before the war. The stuff was under UN/IAEA seal (essentially, a wire and
crimp), hadn't been "eyeballed" by them for some time before the war, and Saddam
regularly moved this stuff around (also in reports).

IMO, if there is negligence, it was the UN and IAEA for not insisting that this
stuff be secured better (or even destroyed). If the "Dems"/Kerry are now so hot
about this potentially dangerous stuff, why weren't they raising hell about
Saddam keeping, making, and having thousands of tons of this stuff with nothing
more than a wire and crimp on it? And then, there's El baradei - if you figure
he isn't playing politics with the timing and language, you're relying on those
figuring lesson from Katiemuskie again....

TC,
R

g.c.

CNN and NBC (whose reporters were imbedded with troops - no neo-cons here)
are reporting that the missing explosives were gone when troops arrived at
the depot http://www.lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=178685

This leads to several questions:
how many more false "Bush Lied" stories does the NY Times, Washington Post,
LA Times, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, etc. are planned before the election?

How long until Kerry apologizes for blasting Bush and the military for the
biggest blunder of the war? (before or after he apologizes for outing Mary
Chaney?)

One more little note... Hundreds of copies of the NY Times with the huge
headline about the missing munitions mysteriously found their way to the
doorsteps of Floridians who don't even subscribe to this rag. Do you think
that the corrections to the story will make the front page or to the same
doorsteps? Not! The corrections to the story didn't even make the Times
today and if it is ever printed it will be buried on page 25.

One take: "Lacking Presidential wisdom, Kerry rushed to judgment and lied to
the American people about both President Bush and the American military -
yet again."


--
Thanks,
Mike

wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:10:12 -0500, George Cleveland

wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/


Well, I think in tort cases that would be known as Criminal Negligence
wouldn't it? Counselors?

All I can figure is that prosthetics manufacturers must be big GOP
contributors.

Have you been taking figuring lessons from Katiestar? You might not want
to
fall into the same hole Kerry has fallen into (albeit his campaign
seemingly
doesn't realize it yet, either). Of course, the Bush campaign (as opposed
to the
administration) isn't helping itself with its responses, either.

I wondered how long it would take for someone to bring this up...IF 377
tons of
explosives are, in fact, missing, and there is some question about how
much was
truly there, it appears it was missing prior to any coalition forces being
able
to secure it. It seems there was an NBC crew "embedded" with a unit that
went
to Al Qa Qaa in early April, and moreover, there are all sorts of (news
and
military) reports about units at Al Qa Qaa in April 2003. But more
importantly,
there's no way to know if the explosives were there prior to something
like a
year before the war. The stuff was under UN/IAEA seal (essentially, a
wire and
crimp), hadn't been "eyeballed" by them for some time before the war, and
Saddam
regularly moved this stuff around (also in reports).

IMO, if there is negligence, it was the UN and IAEA for not insisting that
this
stuff be secured better (or even destroyed). If the "Dems"/Kerry are now
so hot
about this potentially dangerous stuff, why weren't they raising hell
about
Saddam keeping, making, and having thousands of tons of this stuff with
nothing
more than a wire and crimp on it? And then, there's El baradei - if you
figure
he isn't playing politics with the timing and language, you're relying on
those
figuring lesson from Katiemuskie again....

TC,
R

g.c.

CNN and NBC (whose reporters were imbedded with troops - no neo-cons here)
are reporting that the missing explosives were gone when troops arrived at
the depot http://www.lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=178685

This leads to several questions:
how many more false "Bush Lied" stories does the NY Times, Washington Post,
LA Times, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, etc. are planned before the election?

How long until Kerry apologizes for blasting Bush and the military for the
biggest blunder of the war? (before or after he apologizes for outing Mary
Chaney?)

One more little note... Hundreds of copies of the NY Times with the huge
headline about the missing munitions mysteriously found their way to the
doorsteps of Floridians who don't even subscribe to this rag. Do you think
that the corrections to the story will make the front page or to the same
doorsteps? Not! The corrections to the story didn't even make the Times
today and if it is ever printed it will be buried on page 25.

One take: "Lacking Presidential wisdom, Kerry rushed to judgment and lied to
the American people about both President Bush and the American military -
yet again."


--
Thanks,
Mike

wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:10:12 -0500, George Cleveland

wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/


Well, I think in tort cases that would be known as Criminal Negligence
wouldn't it? Counselors?

All I can figure is that prosthetics manufacturers must be big GOP
contributors.

Have you been taking figuring lessons from Katiestar? You might not want
to
fall into the same hole Kerry has fallen into (albeit his campaign
seemingly
doesn't realize it yet, either). Of course, the Bush campaign (as opposed
to the
administration) isn't helping itself with its responses, either.

I wondered how long it would take for someone to bring this up...IF 377
tons of
explosives are, in fact, missing, and there is some question about how
much was
truly there, it appears it was missing prior to any coalition forces being
able
to secure it. It seems there was an NBC crew "embedded" with a unit that
went
to Al Qa Qaa in early April, and moreover, there are all sorts of (news
and
military) reports about units at Al Qa Qaa in April 2003. But more
importantly,
there's no way to know if the explosives were there prior to something
like a
year before the war. The stuff was under UN/IAEA seal (essentially, a
wire and
crimp), hadn't been "eyeballed" by them for some time before the war, and
Saddam
regularly moved this stuff around (also in reports).

IMO, if there is negligence, it was the UN and IAEA for not insisting that
this
stuff be secured better (or even destroyed). If the "Dems"/Kerry are now
so hot
about this potentially dangerous stuff, why weren't they raising hell
about
Saddam keeping, making, and having thousands of tons of this stuff with
nothing
more than a wire and crimp on it? And then, there's El baradei - if you
figure
he isn't playing politics with the timing and language, you're relying on
those
figuring lesson from Katiemuskie again....

TC,
R

g.c.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:49:55 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:



So in other words we have gone from having a president who had a sign
on his desk that said "The Buck Stops Here" to one who has a sign that
reads "We Pass the Buck Here".

Oh, well, if facts won't help, there's always the other routes...

Government of the cliche, by the cliche, and for the cliche. If you seriously
expect _any_ President to not only know about, but take action on any and every
matter, occurrence, detail, etc., you are naive, at best.

But it does bring up an interesting point. Kerry and Edwards have made some
pretty big promises (esp. the guaranteeing no terrorist attack stuff) that are
simply untenable. It's beginning to look like they are trying to get out as
much as possible in some lame-assed attempt to set up, should they win, "paths
of blame" back to Bush and his administration. The problem for such
positioning, as well as using it as campaign rhetoric, is of course that things
like the munitions are already documented. Again, of course, they are counting
on, and not without reason, the US populace not bothering to really examine much
beyond what Dan, Peter, Tom, Wolf, Matt, Katie, etc. tell them, and if they do,
they look to Rush, Al, Michael, Jon, etc. Look at you, for example...

HTH,
R

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:49:55 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:



So in other words we have gone from having a president who had a sign
on his desk that said "The Buck Stops Here" to one who has a sign that
reads "We Pass the Buck Here".

Oh, well, if facts won't help, there's always the other routes...

Government of the cliche, by the cliche, and for the cliche. If you seriously
expect _any_ President to not only know about, but take action on any and every
matter, occurrence, detail, etc., you are naive, at best.

But it does bring up an interesting point. Kerry and Edwards have made some
pretty big promises (esp. the guaranteeing no terrorist attack stuff) that are
simply untenable. It's beginning to look like they are trying to get out as
much as possible in some lame-assed attempt to set up, should they win, "paths
of blame" back to Bush and his administration. The problem for such
positioning, as well as using it as campaign rhetoric, is of course that things
like the munitions are already documented. Again, of course, they are counting
on, and not without reason, the US populace not bothering to really examine much
beyond what Dan, Peter, Tom, Wolf, Matt, Katie, etc. tell them, and if they do,
they look to Rush, Al, Michael, Jon, etc. Look at you, for example...

HTH,
R

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:10:12 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/


Well, I think in tort cases that would be known as Criminal Negligence
wouldn't it? Counselors?

All I can figure is that prosthetics manufacturers must be big GOP
contributors.

Much easier explanification: "It was Clinton's fault"

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:26:54 GMT, wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:49:55 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:



So in other words we have gone from having a president who had a sign
on his desk that said "The Buck Stops Here" to one who has a sign that
reads "We Pass the Buck Here".

Oh, well, if facts won't help, there's always the other routes...

Government of the cliche, by the cliche, and for the cliche. If you seriously
expect _any_ President to not only know about, but take action on any and every
matter, occurrence, detail, etc., you are naive, at best.

But it does bring up an interesting point. Kerry and Edwards have made some
pretty big promises (esp. the guaranteeing no terrorist attack stuff) that are
simply untenable. It's beginning to look like they are trying to get out as
much as possible in some lame-assed attempt to set up, should they win, "paths
of blame" back to Bush and his administration. The problem for such
positioning, as well as using it as campaign rhetoric, is of course that things
like the munitions are already documented. Again, of course, they are counting
on, and not without reason, the US populace not bothering to really examine much
beyond what Dan, Peter, Tom, Wolf, Matt, Katie, etc. tell them, and if they do,
they look to Rush, Al, Michael, Jon, etc. Look at you, for example...

HTH,
R


Jeez, my biggest source of news is Bill Gates own MSNBC. With an
occasional visit to Free Republic to keep things in "perspective".


g.c.