Surprise.

The New York Times rabbled on in some article yesterday about the US losing a huge cache of weapons, and Kerry ran with it. Man, did he run with it... talking about Georgie dropping the ball, calling him incompetent, etc. etc...

Anyway.

NBC cleared it up for us.

“April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al Qakaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon. In a letter this month, the Iraqi interim government told the International Atomic Energy Agency the high explosives were lost to theft and looting due to lack of security. Critics claim there were simply not enough U.S. troops to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles, weapons now being used by insurgents and terrorists to wage a guerrilla war in Iraq.â€

First, go here.

Now, look at my guy at National Review agreeing, in substance, with the article from the Left I just gave you:

[quote="Jim Gerghaty"]
Let me begin this morning by saying something that will probably shock many of you:

Nice job, Josh Marshall.

There’s no sarcasm there. (Of course, nice words from me about Marshall are probably going to wreck his street cred.) Marshall is a key voice on the left, arguing that the Al- Qaaqaa weapons depot is a major blunder by the Bush administration. And there’s little doubt that he still believes this story is a smoking gun of why Bush ought to be voted out of office, pointing to “an official whom the AP describes as closely involved in the Iraq survey work says the explosives were there [when U.S. troops arrived], while Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita says they weren't.â€

It is not that Bush is running out of time. There is only one rabbit he could pull from his hat and that would be the Bin man. The CIA witnessed first hand that the terror that they pull around the world didn't work in Spain so no need for another terrorist act in the states yet. The people are still running scared behind Bush and that is all he needs to breeze through the fixed elections that are going to be held.


But super job on the liberation when everything that had to do with oil was kept in tact. Too bad they didn't try that with the rest of the country, they might respect you a tad more than they do today.

FIrst off, can you explain this bolded part? Granted my intelligence is far below yours, but how does Kerry running with a news article from the NYT imply a fuck up?

Secondly, lets wait for a response from the NYT before who go all crazy here.

funny how when bush goes with bad info, everyone wants to send him to the 9th plane of hell................

I see it as being a bit premature. I don't see any reason why a senator should have to listen to what a news agency says. Shouldn't he be more in tune with the real facts?

This isn't anything real extreme to me, but I see it as another instance when Kerry is more concerned about political gain than anything else.

The Bush administration was in charge of that bad info. Maybe if Kerry ran the New York Times, your point would actually make sense. Plus, I strongly believe that Bush knew the info was bad and ran with it anyway.

But I'm glad to see you're finally admitting that the info is bad 1 down, 49,768,495 to go.

so the US was the only one to have bad info, or is bush in charge of those countries too?

This election has turned into a Limp Bizkit song. "It's all about the he said/he said bullshit." I'm done with it all. I voted, and that's all I can do.

Sure.

Bush runs to a podium screaming WMD at the top of his lungs.

Fuck up.

Kerry runs screaming at the top of his lungs, "The sky is falling, Bush failed at his sentry duty!"

Fuck up.

Me running onto this board saying Kerry shot a man in the back after reading only one source.

Fuck up.

And as far as my intellect is concerned, I'll take the high road and say, "We're all equal here." That being said, everyone is capable of mistakes. Whether Kerry admits he rushed to his comment will stand the same criticism he's passed onto Bush for non-admittance in messing up in Iraq... is a whole other New York Times article, I suppose.

I was just posting what I've read, what I know, and what I believe.

if i was a admin, id ban you for having limp bizkit in your head

*deletes nookie and break stuff off of pc*

Maybe im the one thats fucked up here, but I see a slight difference when your 'leader' runs with some bad info, and thousands upon thousands of people are dead...

HE'S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT! What's he supposed to be concerned with? KooAid? WTF???

I don't think it's such a big deal. We'll just add those to the pile of WMD's that - oh, wait. There is no pile. IT DIDN'T EXIST.[/b]

funny, you wanted to let him off with the bad info...you are aware you do the exact same thing yo are complaining zbout, doncha?

actually, if anything, i point out the hipocracys of both camps, both fucktards do it, and i have never claimed anything less

"CIA complains that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war. FBI investigators are also baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. 'We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there' a government official said."

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/time ... ssing_link

You're right. It seems to me, for the last two weeks or so, Kerry's entire campaign strategy seems to be: "Wake up in the morning. Open the newspaper. Grab a headline, and extrapolate!"

I can just see his strategists: "John, John. Look at 9C! There's a great one in 'Dear Abby!' "

I mean, this bogus NYT story, flu vaccine shortages, the supposed revival of the draft, the alleged privatization of social security (which came from ANOTHER bogus quote from the NYT Sunday magazine).

I'm half-surprised he didn't blame Bush for the Yankees playoff collapse. Hell, if it had happened in a swing state, he probably would have tried.

Now, here's why Kerry should stop it: Because it hasn't been working.

"If Kerry ran the New York Times ..."

I'm half starting to believe this isn't such a stretch.

The NYT is rapidly become like one of those newspapers in Britain, blatantly partisan. The only difference is, in Britain, the papers more or less revel in their partisanship. The NYT still weakly claims to be non-partisan.

I'm not one of those liberal-media conspiracy theorists -- hell, I'm a journalist myself. But the NYT is shaking my belief in that.

I mean, even if the NYT was right about the ammunition story, the article is a journalistic train wreck that blatantly violates several rules of Journalism 101.

For instance, it had already been reported that those munitions were already gone with the U.S. military got there, and might have been gone before the war. Why not address that? Why not ask that question? It seems a pretty obvious question to ask. So why not ask it? I propose because the NYT didn't want to know the answer.

Extrapolating from there: If these munitions were removed prior to the run-up to the war, doesn't it stand to reason that other weapons (yes, WMD) could have been removed as well? Again, the NYT REALLY doesn't want to ask that question.

*pssst*

Here's another place the dishonorable Sen. Kerry is painting himself into a corner:

He's bitching about the supposed loss of 380 tons of this stuff, which he rightly claims is enough to down every airliner on Earth. Now, that 380 tons represents less than 1 percent of the amount of such munitions the U.S. has captured and destroyed (close to 400,000 tons).

So Saddam had AT LEAST enough of these explosives to down every single airliner on Earth 100 TIMES!

Man, I'd hate to be the nation that represents that guy's most mortal enemy. He might try to use that against us, or give it to other groups to use against us. Man, this guy needs to be disarmed ... and fast. ~sarcasm~

Maybe we didn't find conventional WMDs ... but we found weapons that could certainly CAUSE mass destruction ... every single airliner on Earth, 100 times over, remember.

what, pray tell, is the difference?

So I don't want to hear any more bitching about going to Iraq from Kerry. He's pretty much proven to me that Saddam was a threat that needed to be dealt with.