betavote.com bush 11 % Kerry 88% [Archive] - Unofficial World of Warcraft Forums

Essex

28-10-2004, 06:40 PM

http://www.liddyshow.us/

Kerry apparently lost his security clearance for meeting with enemy agents. Follow the link on the above site.

You guys should demand Kerry release ALL his millitary records before you vote for him. He has over 100 pages of records he could, but won't release, including medical and personnel files.

There are rumors his wounds weren't all they were cracked up to be, possibly even self-inflicted. There are also rumors that he was less than honorably discharged.

Don't you guys even want to know for sure? Or are you all a bunch of kool-aid drinkers?
This is what Carl Rove and his group are so good at.

John Kerry volunteers to go to war, saves a man's life, is awarded several medals. But oh no clearly he was just doing all that to into office, yeah he's sneaky like that... sure he could have died but he was so desprate to get shot to get into office that he's no war hero.

John McCain is held as POW during Vietnam. He is tortured and beaten but comes home alive... but he's not war hero... have you heard he has baby who's not even white!!! (they negelected to say of course it was an adopted child) so... nah he's no war hero, him and his non-white baby.

George W. Bush stays at home in Alabama where he may or may not have even showed up, does a ton of coke but.... he's the war hero!!!!!

Father Jack

28-10-2004, 07:00 PM

Mastgrr

28-10-2004, 07:14 PM

[url]
There are rumors his wounds weren't all they were cracked up to be, possibly even self-inflicted.
possibly the world is really run by the illuminati, bilderburgers and the masons.

lovely website link though, Nostradamus92! the US conservatives are cornered, that's why they'd rather talk about Kerry's Vietnamn service than Bush's policies.

powermongor

28-10-2004, 07:40 PM

This is what Carl Rove and his group are so good at.

John Kerry volunteers to go to war, saves a man's life, is awarded several medals. But oh no clearly he was just doing all that to into office, yeah he's sneaky like that... sure he could have died but he was so desprate to get shot to get into office that he's no war hero.

John McCain is held as POW during Vietnam. He is tortured and beaten but comes home alive... but he's not war hero... have you heard he has baby who's not even white!!! (they negelected to say of course it was an adopted child) so... nah he's no war hero, him and his non-white baby.

George W. Bush stays at home in Alabama where he may or may not have even showed up, does a ton of coke but.... he's the war hero!!!!!

WHY THE **** DOESN'T JOHN KERRY HAVE TO RELEASE ALL HIS RECORDS, WHEN BUSH ALREADY DID?

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THIS DOUBLE STANDARD BS. BUSH WAS GRILLED FOR MONTHS OVER HIS RECORDS, HE RELEASES THEM, AND THEY CANT FIND A DURN THING TO GET HIM IN TROUBLE OVER. IN FACT, CBS HAD TO MAKE A STORY UP.

BUT NOOOOOO, JOHN KERRY DOESN'T HAVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, OR DISCLOSE ALL HIS RECORDS. TALK ABOUT A DOUBLE STANDARD.

MAKES ME WANNA PUKE :cheesy:

powermongor

28-10-2004, 07:41 PM

possibly the world is really run by the illuminati, bilderburgers and the masons.

lovely website link though, Nostradamus92! the US conservatives are cornered, that's why they'd rather talk about Kerry's Vietnamn service than Bush's policies.

Way to skirt the issues through conjecture.

powermongor

28-10-2004, 07:46 PM

While this poll is hardly scientific, it does indead show a trend of how universally disliked Bush is.

I sugest Bush move to Niger, its the only country where he is beating Kerry.

Essex you hit the nail on the head.

powermonger your starting to seriously make me ill, based on rumor and hearsay you are still beating up on a man who bled for this country. He had the guts to volunteer to go fight in combat. You on the other hand are too busy or to afraid to serve your country. I would fight to protect your right to critisise his polices and voting record (and I did). But when you attack his service you attack mine and every other veterans , it shows you have no sense of common shame or apreciation for the sacrifices others have made and are still making for you.

Father, as someone who defends this country with his life, I am surprised that you are perfectly ok with the double standard here. Your commander in chief, even though you might not like him, released all his millitary service records in good faith to prove he had nothing to hide, after months of intense grilling by democrats and the media. Kerry won't do the same, just even as an act of fair play, and the media, democrats, and you don't care.

How would you feel if even one of the allegations were true? The only way to disprove any of these things is for Kerry to release his records, and he wont... he has things in there he doesnt want getting out.

Jack, I want you to go to www.stolenhonor.com and watch the free video.

It details how POW's were tortured to admit the things John Kerry accused them of. If you can watch this video, and not say that Kerry, although he served in Vietnam, should still be president, I will never argue with you again.

Mastgrr

28-10-2004, 08:38 PM

WHY THE **** DOESN'T JOHN KERRY HAVE TO RELEASE ALL HIS RECORDS, WHEN BUSH ALREADY DID?Find me a copy of Bush's military medical records.

BrimSt0ne M0nkey

28-10-2004, 08:43 PM

I dont think its necessarily the fact that we like Kerry, its that we dont like Bush and kerry is really our only alternative. Hell, if Danny Divito were running against Bush he'd probably get the votes that Kerry would normally get becuase those people just dont like Bush.

powermongor

28-10-2004, 10:05 PM

Find me a copy of Bush's military medical records.

find em yourself.

DuskO

28-10-2004, 10:43 PM

Should we base our votes on military service or current platforms?

Why get pulled into the past, when the present is 1000% more important?

Havard

29-10-2004, 12:33 AM

Andarcel

29-10-2004, 01:05 AM

find em yourself.
Wow, you are one astounding ***. I realize this more every day. See, powermonger, Mastgrr asked you that question because Bush has never released his medical records.

And the day you provide a political link that isn't from a wingnut I will surely die of shock. Honestly, you could at least make an effort to be taken seriously. The site looks like a bad parody of Drudge.

Andarcel

29-10-2004, 01:07 AM

This site's accuracy leaves something to be desired:

..........................................................Bush.....Kerry.....Bush....Kerry
United States......John Kerry by 51%........16194....49134....24%.....75%
It has a wide margin of error. Notice how widely divergent a race it calls a "statistical tie." It's overall accuracy is, however, substantially higher.

Havard

29-10-2004, 01:38 AM

It has a wide margin of error. Notice how widely divergent a race it calls a "statistical tie." It's overall accuracy is, however, substantially higher.

I'm not following how this poll could be considered accurate. It's not scientific, and a poll that suggests that 74% of Americans favor Kerry does not resemble any of the scientific polls...

Most current 3 way polls:
ABC/Washington Post: Bush 49%, Kerry 48%
Gallup: Bush 51%, Kerry 46%
LA Times: Bush 48%, Kerry 48%
Newsweek: Bush 48%, Kerry 46%
Rasmussen: Bush 48.9%, Kerry 46.9%
Reuters/Zogby: Bush 48%, Kerry 46%
TIPP: Bush 47%, Kerry 44%

Most current Head-to-Head Polls: (no Nader)
Gallup: Bush 52%, Kerry 46%
LA Times: Bush 49%, Kerry 48%
Newsweek: Bush 48%, Kerry 47%
Rasmussen: Bush 50%, Kerry 48%
TIPP: Bush 46%, Kerry 43%

Essex

29-10-2004, 02:05 AM

actually all the polls have been so back and forth with such large gaps that I've stopped trusting them. I really think the polls have this one wrong, and I think the constant change in them (not small changes sometimes massive ones when looking at state polls) is one reason why they are wrong.

I'm not looking at another poll again until this damn thing is over. The political season is too long, I'm burned the **** out over all of it. I hope for a strong descisve Kerry victory but I doubt that will happen. In fact I've read that it could be possible that Kerry wins the Electoral but loses the popular (which would be so ok with me)

However I'm almost convinced that Bush will squeak out of this one as well because he has more of an advantage, a brother in one of the swing states, and a Supreme Court that tilts his way 5-4.

I just know that if Bush wins he'll act like he got a ****ing mandate. That's what irked me last time... he didn't even get all the popular vote, yet he only ever follows his, and his parties whim. There has been almost not compromise out of this guy and with 9/11 giving him almost untouchable status there for a while that made it worse.

Either way whoever wins shouldn't act like they got a huge victory because more than likely they got half the country and the other guy got just about as many.

Glurin

29-10-2004, 02:07 AM

Powermonger has a point guys. Your running on a double standard.

John Kerry volunteers to go to war, saves a man's life, is awarded several medals. He's a war hero! Who cares about the details, right?

George W. Bush joins the National Guard and thus isn't sent to fight, and was honorably discharged. But we can't leave it at that. Oh no. We have to pick over his service with a microscope. If he coughed while in formation, we have to hold it against him.

Should we base our votes on military service or current platforms?

Why get pulled into the past, when the present is 1000% more important?

Normaly military service is just a minor issue. But some anti-Bush people tried to throw some accusations at Bush a while back, and then while campaining Kerry ran on his service, calling it into question by default.

Andarcel

29-10-2004, 02:07 AM

So it does. I thought it was "John Kerry with 51%. Oh well. Looks like garbage.

Andarcel

29-10-2004, 02:08 AM

Powermonger has a point guys. Your running on a double standard.

John Kerry volunteers to go to war, saves a man's life, is awarded several medals. He's a war hero! Who cares about the details, right?

George W. Bush joins the National Guard and thus isn't sent to fight, and was honorably discharged. But we can't leave it at that. Oh no. We have to pick over his service with a microscope. If he coughed while in formation, we have to hold it against him.

Normaly military service is just a minor issue. But some anti-Bush people tried to throw some accusations at Bush a while back, and then while campaining Kerry ran on his service, calling it into question by default.
Since I'm not one of them, I don't care one way or another. But thus far, no one's presented a credible challenge to Kerry's service.

Oberon

29-10-2004, 02:12 AM

http://www.liddyshow.us/

Kerry apparently lost his security clearance for meeting with enemy agents. Follow the link on the above site.

This is the website of G. Gordon Liddy. He was the chief operative for President Richard Nixon's White House Plumbers unit that broke into the Watergate complex in 1972 and led to Nixon's resignation in 1974. In 1972 Liddy worked for Nixon's campaign, the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP) where he concocted several far-fetched plots intended to embarrass the Democratic opposition. Liddy led and then botched the ill-conceived break-in of the Democratic National Campaign headquarters in the Watergate complex. Liddy was convicted of conspiracy, burglary, and illegal wiretapping and served five years in prison before having his 20 year sentence commuted by President Jimmy Carter. I wouldn't believe a word this criminal says.

Sage the Mage

29-10-2004, 02:33 AM

I think its safe to assume the race is gonna be close. I think the deciding factor may be in a lot of cases how many young people vote.

powermongor

29-10-2004, 03:32 AM

Wow, you are one astounding ***. I realize this more every day. See, powermonger, Mastgrr asked you that question because Bush has never released his medical records.

And the day you provide a political link that isn't from a wingnut I will surely die of shock. Honestly, you could at least make an effort to be taken seriously. The site looks like a bad parody of Drudge.

I thought that Bush's medical records are out there, I will investigate further.

Anyhow, ask yourself this... if John Kerry made such a big deal of his purple hearts, why not release the medical records to let ppl see what he went thru?

That would be golden to his campaign.

Maybe his wounds werent all he made them out to be... oh well, at least he can still snow board, the poor guy.

powermongor

29-10-2004, 03:33 AM

This is the website of G. Gordon Liddy. He was the chief operative for President Richard Nixon's White House Plumbers unit that broke into the Watergate complex in 1972 and led to Nixon's resignation in 1974. In 1972 Liddy worked for Nixon's campaign, the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP) where he concocted several far-fetched plots intended to embarrass the Democratic opposition. Liddy led and then botched the ill-conceived break-in of the Democratic National Campaign headquarters in the Watergate complex. Liddy was convicted of conspiracy, burglary, and illegal wiretapping and served five years in prison before having his 20 year sentence commuted by President Jimmy Carter. I wouldn't believe a word this criminal says.

He says so much himself on his website. He doesn't hide anything.

Wasn't clinton impeached for perjury? not that he served time, but you wouldn't disbelieve anything Clinton said, would you?

powermongor

29-10-2004, 03:35 AM

Since I'm not one of them, I don't care one way or another. But thus far, no one's presented a credible challenge to Kerry's service.

HELLO??? SWIFTVETS FOR TRUTH??? HAVE YOU EVEN SEEN STOLEN HONOR???

MEBBE ITS CAUSE KERRY WONT LET ALL HIS RECORDS OUT. HE IS HIDING SOMETHING, AND I HOPE THIS STORY BREAKS NATIONALLY SOON. THIS COULD BE THE "OCTOBER SURPRISE" MUAHAHAHA

ScytheNoire

29-10-2004, 04:10 AM

HELLO??? SWIFTVETS FOR TRUTH??? HAVE YOU EVEN SEEN STOLEN HONOR???

MEBBE ITS CAUSE KERRY WONT LET ALL HIS RECORDS OUT. HE IS HIDING SOMETHING, AND I HOPE THIS STORY BREAKS NATIONALLY SOON. THIS COULD BE THE "OCTOBER SURPRISE" MUAHAHAHA
you're all in a panic there little guy
why freakin' out?

on an interesting sidenote, Bush was voted Movie Villain of the Year for this role in Farenheit 911. i thought that was rather appropriate. he managed to beat out some big names like Leatherface. think about that, people think Bush is worse than someone who slaughters young adults, skins them, and then wears their skin on their face. Bush is WORSE than that. lol, makes me wonder what is wrong with some Americans. well, both are from Texas... so maybe there is something to that.

Booms

29-10-2004, 04:15 AM

MEBBE ITS CAUSE KERRY WONT LET ALL HIS RECORDS OUT. HE IS HIDING SOMETHING, AND I HOPE THIS STORY BREAKS NATIONALLY SOON. THIS COULD BE THE "OCTOBER SURPRISE" MUAHAHAHA

Power, give it up. Everyone who was actually with Kerry is supporting him.

But speaking of "October surprises," what does everyone think of the missing 380 tons of missing explosives that we were supposed to be guarding? I don't see how much more incompetent the Bush administration and their handling of the war could get.

Pongle

29-10-2004, 05:07 AM

Kerry won't let his records out, so what? you don't get a purple heart for nothing.

Bush is a ****in liar anyway - "We cant cover all our ****in explosives in Iraq" OF COURSE YOU CAN, JUST PUT SOME MORE MEN ON THE GROUND.

Whatever Kerry has done in the military, it's not like Bush did any better - he stayed away from the war, he was DRUNK during training and he was AWOL on several occasions.

Havard

29-10-2004, 05:40 AM

My cat's breath smells like cat food. :flip:

Father Jack

29-10-2004, 07:31 AM

Father, as someone who defends this country with his life, I am surprised that you are perfectly ok with the double standard here. Your commander in chief, even though you might not like him, released all his millitary service records in good faith to prove he had nothing to hide, after months of intense grilling by democrats and the media. Kerry won't do the same, just even as an act of fair play, and the media, democrats, and you don't care.

How would you feel if even one of the allegations were true? The only way to disprove any of these things is for Kerry to release his records, and he wont... he has things in there he doesnt want getting out.

Jack, I want you to go to www.stolenhonor.com and watch the free video.

It details how POW's were tortured to admit the things John Kerry accused them of. If you can watch this video, and not say that Kerry, although he served in Vietnam, should still be president, I will never argue with you again.

I watched this video it doesn't change my mind about anything. It doesn't have anything to do with Kerrys service first of all.

But, it catalogs in graphic detail the torture that was perpatrated on our POW's. It's sad to watch thier suffering, and its rather hard to imagine what it must have taken to survive.

But its rather simplistic propoganda. It's incredably biased and one sided. They make blanket statements they have no way to prove and many are just ridiculious. For example that his testimony extended the war when it clearly helped end the war. It's sensationalistic and relies on opinon and innuendo.

It's also factually wrong on several points, for example it implies that the Jane Fonda visit to N. Vietnam was contemporary to the Kerrys testimony yet her visit was 3 years before his testimony. Also it lays the blame for the torture at the feet of John Kerry. It's laughable, the Vietnamese were torturing POW's years before John Kerry ever testified before congress.

They continue to say that the things he said before congress were lies and he knew they were lies, (how do they know what he thought) yet they were not. He was there before congress as a representative of a broader Veterans group describing things that other soldier had described that they participated in. They don't mention that. Did all soldier do the things kerry described, clearly no. Did some, obviously yes. Remember My Lai. Did they imploy a tactic of free fire zones, yes. Did civilians die because of it, yes.

4 million vietnamese civilians(north and south) were killed during the war, this is the equivelent of 13% of the population. If it happened in america it would be over 28 million dead. They didn't commit suicide you know, it takes alot of ordinance and effort ot kill that many people.

Should Vietnam veterans feel betrayed by the way the were treated returning to this country. Damn right they should they were treated like hell. As John Kerry said "do not confuse the 'War' with the 'Warrior'". These guys are bitter, and they have a right to be. But its not fair to look to Kerry as a convienent person to blame.

Are all Vietnam vets tainted because of a few soldiers actions? They shouldn't be, I would hate to be thought of in the same terms as those Abu Graib soldiers.

So I watched your Video, I still support Senator Kerry. And I still respect him. But please don't stop arguing with me, it gives you a chance to see how wrong you are.

P.S. You should be aware that the producer Carlton Sherwood, has worked for the Bush administration and Tom Ridge, the Homeland security Director, so I'm sure hes not biased at all.

Father Jack

29-10-2004, 07:40 AM

WHY THE **** DOESN'T JOHN KERRY HAVE TO RELEASE ALL HIS RECORDS, WHEN BUSH ALREADY DID?

Wrong again powermonger. Bush has not released all of his service records, some have 'disapeared' (how could that have happened?) The other few have only been released because the AP has sued to have them made public under the freedom of information act.

ScytheNoire

29-10-2004, 07:55 AM

My cat's breath smells like cat food. :flip:
wow, mine too.
we have so much in common, did you want to go out sometime?
what? no, no, i'm not that type of guy, i would never kiss and tell.
um, i don't know, i've never done that before.
oh, okay, i understand, it's you, not me. sure. whatever. beotch.
i'm sorry, i didn't mean that. ya, i still care about you.
okay, let's just be friends, it's better that way.
oh hey, long time no see, how's it going? glad to hear that.
well, see you again sometime.

Mastgrr

29-10-2004, 08:38 AM

See, powermonger, Mastgrr asked you that question because Bush has never released his medical records
Yup, that's the reason. He let journalists take a peek at them, but he's never released them to the public.

Elevander

29-10-2004, 09:41 AM

Yup, that's the reason. He let journalists take a peek at them, but he's never released them to the public.
Medical records, indeed. :yawn:

Who cares?

Anyway, looky here. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136897,00.html) I can't tell if it's more propaganda crap, but look at it.

Glurin

29-10-2004, 11:25 AM

But speaking of "October surprises," what does everyone think of the missing 380 tons of missing explosives that we were supposed to be guarding? I don't see how much more incompetent the Bush administration and their handling of the war could get.

Nobody even knows if they were there to begin with, Booms. Actualy its been deemed highly unlikly that someone could have stolen them without someone noticeing due to the heavy U.S. military traffic in the area the whole time. Just too many questions to say for sure. Same as when we found that old serin gas shell or whatever. Could have ment anything at the time.

ScytheNoire

29-10-2004, 12:03 PM

Nobody even knows if they were there to begin with, Booms. Actualy its been deemed highly unlikly that someone could have stolen them without someone noticeing due to the heavy U.S. military traffic in the area the whole time. Just too many questions to say for sure. Same as when we found that old serin gas shell or whatever. Could have ment anything at the time.
so what are you saying, they lost 380 tons? whatever way you look at it, 380 tons of explosives disappeared, are no longer known where they are, and that there is the problem. 380 tons! TONS! how do you lose 380 tons of anything, let alone explosive?!

Galron Kincaid

29-10-2004, 01:37 PM

There are rumors his wounds weren't all they were cracked up to be, possibly even self-inflicted. There are also rumors that he was less than honorably discharged.

Rumours, rumours, rumours.... all you have is buzz.

ScytheNoire

29-10-2004, 01:56 PM

Rumours, rumours, rumours.... all you have is buzz.
buzz? no, i think those are called lies

even funnier, what i keep hearing in the news, is that Kerry is mentioning how 380 tons of explosive got lots and Bush's answer is that we don't have all the facts.
now, why doesn't he tell us all the facts? i'm sure people would love to know.
oh wait, did he end up giving them to Iran?! i mean, that's what his father did, so why not follow and be just like daddy. if you really look at it, both Bush reigns have a lot of bad similarities.

Essex

29-10-2004, 02:31 PM

Nobody even knows if they were there to begin with, Booms. Actualy its been deemed highly unlikly that someone could have stolen them without someone noticeing due to the heavy U.S. military traffic in the area the whole time. Just too many questions to say for sure. Same as when we found that old serin gas shell or whatever. Could have ment anything at the time.
I think this story was put out late last night so many people may not have caught on yet.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847

ScytheNoire

29-10-2004, 03:39 PM

I think this story was put out late last night so many people may not have caught on yet.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847
which backs up my thoughts, they purposely left the explosives unguarded so that Al-Qaqaa, whom Bush Sr. is responsible for creating, would get a hold of this explosives.

now i'm not sure how many remember all the stuff that happened between 1980 and 1992 during the Bush Sr. reign, but there was more underhanded, illegal, black op's that happened then then ever in American history. let's just say that Bush Jr. is still carrying on Bush Sr.'s dirty deeds.

i'm currently watching a banned documentary about what happened in Panama and the attacks in 1989, and it's exactly the same as what happen in Iraq. all of this mess that we have in the world today, from Saddam to Osama, was created during the 12 years that Bush Sr. was in power. heck, going back to 1976 when Bush Sr. was head of the CIA this dirty work was going on. it's truly scary to watch just how dangerous the Republican government, or at least certain memebers, are. they are the most dangerous men to ever live. scary, scary stuff.

Graav Wolfsong

29-10-2004, 04:41 PM

*Desperately searches for the /Ignore button*

Mastgrr

29-10-2004, 04:47 PM

HELLO??? SWIFTVETS FOR TRUTH??? HAVE YOU EVEN SEEN STOLEN HONOR???
1. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=231.html (Dick Cheney's favorite website)
2. Jim Rassman, the army lieutenant saved by Kerry during a firefight, directly contradicted many of the claims made by the Swift Boat Vets. Rassman supported Kerry’s Bronze Star and has always backed up Kerry’s version of the story.
3. The Swift Boat Vets are politically funded by a major GOP donor.
4. http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/print?id=166434
Nightline discovered that Kerry’s version of the story was correct.

Mastgrr

29-10-2004, 04:49 PM

I think this story was put out late last night so many people may not have caught on yet.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847
http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=1

Seals used by the IAEA (top). A seal on an Iraqi bunker door videotaped by a 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew on April 18, 2003 (bottom).

also check
http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

Andarcel

29-10-2004, 07:25 PM

which backs up my thoughts, they purposely left the explosives unguarded so that Al-Qaqaa, whom Bush Sr. is responsible for creating, would get a hold of this explosives.

now i'm not sure how many remember all the stuff that happened between 1980 and 1992 during the Bush Sr. reign, but there was more underhanded, illegal, black op's that happened then then ever in American history. let's just say that Bush Jr. is still carrying on Bush Sr.'s dirty deeds.

i'm currently watching a banned documentary about what happened in Panama and the attacks in 1989, and it's exactly the same as what happen in Iraq. all of this mess that we have in the world today, from Saddam to Osama, was created during the 12 years that Bush Sr. was in power. heck, going back to 1976 when Bush Sr. was head of the CIA this dirty work was going on. it's truly scary to watch just how dangerous the Republican government, or at least certain memebers, are. they are the most dangerous men to ever live. scary, scary stuff.
Yes, as part of their ingenius plan to secure world-wide domination, the Bush Jr. cabinet arranged for the terorrists to get explosives.

What would we do without wacko conspiracy theories?

My father was, incidentally, among the first to advocate kidnapping Noriego. It effectively ended all hopes for promotion, but it would have forestalled a lot of problems had the Army listened. As it is, he has the vindication of hindsight.

Sorry, Glurin, the explosives story is just not gonna turn out well for Bush no matter how you try to spin it. On the Bush side: satellite phots of two trucks in the area, whcih globalsecuritywatch says weren't even at the right bunkers. On the Kerry side: eye-witness accounts and video footage of the IAEA seal being broken, rows of barrels of explosives, and David KAy's testimony that he is completely positive that was HMX and RDX.

You can try to hide the incompetence, but eventually the truth will out.

Father Jack

29-10-2004, 07:32 PM

It's not just the explosives, there were cases of proximity fuses there. Proximity fuses are an insurgents wet dream. What more could the insurgents ask for?

Mastgrr

29-10-2004, 08:26 PM

What more could the insurgents ask for?A nuclear bomb? Worst case scenario.

Sage the Mage

29-10-2004, 09:14 PM

So when do we bend this to asking the question as to why the Bush admin never actually accepts the blame for anything?

Scythe, you need a tin foil hat :)
Anyway there's obviously a lot of history of the US with Iraq and Iran, playing one side against the other, or both at the same time.

Glurin

30-10-2004, 09:46 AM

Sorry, Glurin, the explosives story is just not gonna turn out well for Bush no matter how you try to spin it.

Sorry Andarcel, but I'm not trying to put a pro-bush spin on it. I mealy pointed out that we didn't even know for sure if they were there to begin with, thus trying say anything at all about it right now is stupid. Just like that bomb that was found. Heck, we've got far less info on it now than Bush did on Iraq haveing WMD in the first place. This whole missing explosives mess could have been anything from theft to simple clerical error.

Oh, and one more thing concerning the links provided.

"On Wednesday, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS e-mailed still images of the footage taken at the site to experts in Washington to see if the items captured on tape are the same kind of high explosives that went missing in Al Qaqaa. Those experts could not make that determination.

The footage is now in the hands of security experts to see if it is indeed the explosives in question. " Updated: 10/28/2004 08:24:30 PM

"A 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew in Iraq may have been just a door away from materials that could be used to detonate nuclear weapons." Updated: 10/29/2004 07:46:11 AM

There is also this little bit, which indicates another possibility:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/29/iraq.explosives.ap/index.html
Friday, October 29, 2004 Posted: 2:54 PM EDT (1854 GMT)

You people are just way too eager to blame Bush for everything.

Elevander

30-10-2004, 12:31 PM

Dang, after browsing these forums for the past few weeks, I sort of hope Kerry wins and screws up the country.

Mastgrr

31-10-2004, 07:15 PM

Here's a funny thing I found on Wikipedia the other day:

"Compassionate conservatism" a term popularized by George W. Bush, is held by many conservatives to be redundant, and a public-relations buzzword. Insofar as the presidency of George W. Bush has increased welfare substantially in the form of what is historically the greatest expansion of Medicare ever and in the form of the No Child Left Behind act, it may be that compassionate conservativism is simply the synthesis of social conservatism and fiscal liberalism.

powermongor

31-10-2004, 11:09 PM

Mastgrr

31-10-2004, 11:30 PM

It is interesting that the best insult that a liberal-leaning website can come up with against Bush, is that he is a liberal...There you go again Powermonger, grabbing "facts" out of your butt (a harsh thing to say, but it's true.)

You make up nonsense sometimes, and I wonder if it's just to make yourself feel comfortable.

SpiritWalker

31-10-2004, 11:41 PM

Anyone seen Southpark episode 808: Giant Deuce vs Turd Sandwich? Damn, they couldn't get it more accurate about the whole voting issue in the US. :lol:

powermongor

01-11-2004, 12:11 AM

There you go again Powermonger, grabbing "facts" out of your butt (a harsh thing to say, but it's true.)

You make up nonsense sometimes, and I wonder if it's just to make yourself feel comfortable.

Mastgrr, have you been thru the political entries for Wikipedia?

Most of the entries to that site are not made by Republicans or Conservatives...

Mastgrr

01-11-2004, 12:47 AM

Mastgrr, have you been thru the political entries for Wikipedia?Yes.

Most of the entries to that site are not made by Republicans or Conservatives...I'd be glad to hear where you got that information from.

powermongor

01-11-2004, 02:51 AM

Yes.

I'd be glad to hear where you got that information from.

OMG Mastgrr... I'm not even going to bother with you anymore.

Andarcel

01-11-2004, 05:38 AM

OMG Mastgrr... I'm not even going to bother with you anymore.
Yup. Once again, powermonger dodges the challenge. It's a lovely sight to behold. Have you ever, in your life, expressed a belief and defended it against even the most inoccuous scrutiny, powermonger?

Sorry Andarcel, but I'm not trying to put a pro-bush spin on it. I mealy pointed out that we didn't even know for sure if they were there to begin with, thus trying say anything at all about it right now is stupid. Just like that bomb that was found. Heck, we've got far less info on it now than Bush did on Iraq haveing WMD in the first place. This whole missing explosives mess could have been anything from theft to simple clerical error.

Oh, and one more thing concerning the links provided.

"On Wednesday, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS e-mailed still images of the footage taken at the site to experts in Washington to see if the items captured on tape are the same kind of high explosives that went missing in Al Qaqaa. Those experts could not make that determination.

The footage is now in the hands of security experts to see if it is indeed the explosives in question. " Updated: 10/28/2004 08:24:30 PM

"A 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew in Iraq may have been just a door away from materials that could be used to detonate nuclear weapons." Updated: 10/29/2004 07:46:11 AM

There is also this little bit, which indicates another possibility:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/29/ir...s.ap/index.html
Friday, October 29, 2004 Posted: 2:54 PM EDT (1854 GMT)

You people are just way too eager to blame Bush for everything.

I did a nice riposte to that earlier, but got a forum bug. So here it is again, crankier this time around:

To put the whole thing in perspective:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-05-wagner_x.htm

Now, when I say that only an idiot would continue to try and argue that the weapons weren't there when we arrived, I'm using the authority of the very best expert on the subject: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/28/asb.01.html
"DAVID KAY, FMR. U.S. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good to be with you, Aaron.

BROWN: I don't know how better to do this than to show you some pictures, have you explain to me what they are or are not, OK? First, I'll just call it the seal and tell me if this is an IAEA seal on that bunker at that munitions dump.

KAY: Aaron, as about as certain as I can be looking at a picture, not physically holding it, which obviously I would have preferred to have been there, that's an IAEA seal. I've never seen anything else in Iraq in about 15 years of being in Iraq and around Iraq that was other than an IAEA seal of that shape.

BROWN: And was there anything else at the facility that would have been under IAEA seal?

KAY: Absolutely nothing. It was he HMX, RDX, the two high explosives.

BROWN: OK. Now, I want to take a look at the barrels here for a second and you can tell me what they tell you. They obviously to us just show us a bunch of barrels. You'll see it somewhat differently.

KAY: Well, it's interesting. There were three foreign suppliers to Iraq of this explosive in the 1980s. One of them used barrels like this and inside the barrel is a bag. HMX is in powdered form because you actually use it to shape a spherical lens that is used to create the triggering device for nuclear weapons.

And, particularly on the videotape, which is actually better than the still photos, as the soldier dips into it that's either HMX or RDX. I don't know of anything else in al Qa Qaa that was in that form.

BROWN: Let me ask you then, David, the question I asked Jamie. In regard to the dispute about whether that stuff was there when the Americans arrived, is it game, set, match? Is that part of the argument now over?

KAY: Well, at least with regard to this one bunker and the film shows one seal, one bunker, one group of soldiers going through and there were others there that were sealed, with this one, I think it is game, set and match.

There was HMX, RDX in there. The seal was broken and quite frankly to me the most frightening thing is not only is the seal broken and the lock broken but the soldiers left after opening it up. I mean to rephrase the so-called (UNINTELLIGIBLE) rule if you open an arms bunker, you own it. You have to provide security."

And, of course, there's more eye-witness testimony: http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2004/10/29/news/explode.html

Lest we forget where the evidence is coming from:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847

And it's not just David Kay who is of this opinion. Three experts share it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/politics/29bomb.html?hp&ex=1099108800&en=7b767c25018de326&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Sage the Mage

01-11-2004, 05:54 AM

powermongor

01-11-2004, 06:05 AM

Psh, you know Kay, ABC, the NY Times, and whatever other sources you listed are all left leaning :uhhuh:

Well at least that's my guess as for Powermonger's response.

Anyway I'd probably agree that the wikipedia is a bit more left leaning when an opinion on anything is necessary (which is pretty much never). Why? Its just the vibe I get from any open-source thing.

Feel free to edit the wiki though if you have any corrections powermonger.

No that's pretty much my take. Just as this forum has a definite tendency to lean to the left. so does CBS, ABC, etc. as well as Wikkipedia.

I don't believe that contributors to Wikkipedia could be characterized as being conservatives... the entire concept of Wikkipedia goes against mainstream methods of disseminating info. Also, you wouldn't find conservatives with the deep insight into some of the more "weird" topics that are posted on it.

Apparently some people in this forum need a Zogby poll of Wikkipedia posters before they feel comfortable making generalizations.

Most of the time, when it walks like a duck, and it sounds like a duck... its a duck.

garebear2571

01-11-2004, 06:07 AM

While this poll is hardly scientific, it does indead show a trend of how universally disliked Bush is.

Yes it shows exactly how Bush is universally disliked ... after all, this poll is obviously completely inaccurate. Therefore, this poll proves nothing. There is something called voluntary response and convient sampling and this is a case of both of those things. It is convient sampling because it is online in a convient place for people to reach. It is voluntary response because ... well, it's voluntary and people can choose to vote or not. Clearly there is some reason why Kerry supporters are choosing to vote and Bush voters are not. maybe it is due to the fact that Kerry supporters are telling each other about it and they get all their friends to vote, etc, etc. Or maybe Bush supporters just don't care that much to vote in an online poll. There are many reasons why the poll could be so skewed.

Therefore I feel this poll proves nothing about how the world feels about Kerry/Bush. Maybe this is all just a big scam and the creators of this online poll are actually making up data? I'm not pointing fingers, just merely pointing out that it is a poll being made by two people who are most likely biased one way or the other and they can change the data either way (I'm not trying to say that this is the reason why, I'm just making suggestions).

With regards to which is a better candidate ... sometimes you have to choose between a douche bag and a turd sandwich.

~Gare

Father Jack

01-11-2004, 08:07 AM

Most of the time, when it walks like a duck, and it sounds like a duck... its a duck.

Are you talking about how you duck posts that prove you wrong? I have several under my belt you refuse to respond too.

Father Jack

01-11-2004, 08:10 AM

Yes it shows exactly how Bush is universally disliked ... after all, this poll is obviously completely inaccurate. Therefore, this poll proves nothing. There is something called voluntary response and convient sampling and this is a case of both of those things. It is convient sampling because it is online in a convient place for people to reach. It is voluntary response because ... well, it's voluntary and people can choose to vote or not. Clearly there is some reason why Kerry supporters are choosing to vote and Bush voters are not. maybe it is due to the fact that Kerry supporters are telling each other about it and they get all their friends to vote, etc, etc. Or maybe Bush supporters just don't care that much to vote in an online poll. There are many reasons why the poll could be so skewed.

Therefore I feel this poll proves nothing about how the world feels about Kerry/Bush. Maybe this is all just a big scam and the creators of this online poll are actually making up data? I'm not pointing fingers, just merely pointing out that it is a poll being made by two people who are most likely biased one way or the other and they can change the data either way (I'm not trying to say that this is the reason why, I'm just making suggestions).

With regards to which is a better candidate ... sometimes you have to choose between a douche bag and a turd sandwich.

~Gare

Garebear2571, I know the poll is unscientific, thats why it was the first thing I said. None the less, it does reflect a trend seen from other more reliable sources of how disliked Bush is around the world.

I think even powermonger would agree that Bush isn't very liked around the world, though he would read something different into it than I would.

Sorry if Ii wasn't clear in my first post.

Father Jack

01-11-2004, 08:41 AM

Sorry Andarcel, but I'm not trying to put a pro-bush spin on it. I mealy pointed out that we didn't even know for sure if they were there to begin with, thus trying say anything at all about it right now is stupid. Just like that bomb that was found. Heck, we've got far less info on it now than Bush did on Iraq haveing WMD in the first place. This whole missing explosives mess could have been anything from theft to simple clerical error.

Oh, and one more thing concerning the links provided.

"On Wednesday, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS e-mailed still images of the footage taken at the site to experts in Washington to see if the items captured on tape are the same kind of high explosives that went missing in Al Qaqaa. Those experts could not make that determination.

The footage is now in the hands of security experts to see if it is indeed the explosives in question. " Updated: 10/28/2004 08:24:30 PM

"A 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew in Iraq may have been just a door away from materials that could be used to detonate nuclear weapons." Updated: 10/29/2004 07:46:11 AM

There is also this little bit, which indicates another possibility:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/29/iraq.explosives.ap/index.html
Friday, October 29, 2004 Posted: 2:54 PM EDT (1854 GMT)

You people are just way too eager to blame Bush for everything.

Here is another turn in the story:

International Herald Tribune-Reporter saw insurgents loot Qaqaa arms depot (http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/29/news/explode.html).

So whos to blame Glurin our troops? I won't hear that.

I blame Bush in as far as he is the head of the administration and is responsible for Rumsfelds policies and actions, the generals told Rummy they needed more troops for after the invasion but he didn't listen so they went in half assed and there was looting and chaos and now an insurgency that shows no sign of letting up.

Mastgrr

01-11-2004, 09:48 AM

I don't believe that contributors to Wikkipedia could be characterized as being conservatives... the entire concept of Wikkipedia goes against mainstream methods of disseminating info. Also, you wouldn't find conservatives with the deep insight into some of the more "weird" topics that are posted on it.And you got this info from where?

Apparently some people in this forum need a Zogby poll of Wikkipedia posters before they feel comfortable making generalizations....because you have no facts to back your statement up.

Your behavior is just ridiculous! Show me something -- a study, a comprehensive gathering of statistics or examples that broadly supports your hypothesis that Wikipedia has a liberal slant.

Glurin

01-11-2004, 11:34 AM

Andarcel, you should read the transcript a little more carefully.

"KAY: Well, at least with regard to this one bunker and the film shows one seal, one bunker, one group of soldiers going through and there were others there that were sealed, with this one, I think it is game, set and match."

Even Kay isn't stating the film shows the explosives in question.

Oh, and on NYtimes link:

"The witnesses were people working at Al Qaqaa, Mr. Sharaa said. Still, he said, the evidence is not yet definitive, and "we don't say it's impossible" that the material was somehow taken out of Al Qaqaa before the American forces came through the area. The first American forces arrived at Al Qaqaa on April 3.

Rashad M. Omar, the minister of science and technology, said that as far as he was concerned, the exact timing of the disappearance remained unknown. "How, where, when is it taken, all these questions, we don't have answers," Dr. Omar said."

Again, you are just way too eager to blame Bush for everything. Even these experts that you sited aren't sure exactly what happened and when.

Oh, and one more thing. I agree that only an idiot would argue that the explosives weren't there when we arrived. But only an idiot would argue that they were. Nobody knows if they were there or not. That is what I am argueing. Its stupid for you or anyone else to draw conclusions right now.

Father Jack:

So whos to blame Glurin our troops? I won't hear that.

Thats just it. We don't know who is to blame yet. The explosives just dissapeared and we don't know what happened or when it happened. So far what we've got is video of ONE bunker that shows explosives inside, which we aren't even sure are the ones in question, and a photo of some activity outside the bunkers before the invasion. Plus of course some debateable eye-witness testimony from a few reporters and some workers. And the testimony of Maj. Austin Pearson, which indicates the distinct possibility that the explosives may have been destroyed 10 days after the u.s. arrived at the site. (which may also partialy explain why it was left ungaurded)

We don't know what happened or when. Nobody knows what happened or when. The only thing anybody knows for certain is that nobody knows what happened to those explosives or when it happened.

I am rather enjoying the irony of the situation though.

Andarcel

01-11-2004, 06:42 PM

Your post says it all. You hinge all your skepticism on the fact that we have not proved, beyond a doubt, that every single ton of explosives was present during the occupation.

That's you whole argument: there's a slim, vague, remote possibility that not all of the explosives were present, and therefore we shouldn't blame Bush.

I could of course ask you what reason anyone could have to think that, if there was one bunker full of explosives left there unguarded, the rest of the explosives weren't also there. Given that there's no evidence whatsoever that there weren't other explosives there. I could ask you why, even if it was just the one bunker, you think it's ok that to simply drop those explosves into the laps of terorrists. I could point out that it's now a well-known fact that there weren't enough troops in the country, and that even if, by some miracle, the terrorists had gotten to Al Qaqaa before we did, we know damn well other explosives in country were left unguarded. But there's no point. Like I said, a fully attested documentary endorsed by President Bush wouldn't convince you. You'd start arguing that it might be aliens and mass hypnosis. Anything to get Bush off the hook.

Still, the straws you'll grasp out are amusing.

Father Jack

01-11-2004, 07:42 PM

Glurin perhaps not all of the missing explosives got into the hands of the insurgenst, but we know that definitely some have. Even if only a box of proximity fuses got into the hands of the insurgents it illustrates the failure of the Def. Dept. to plan for the occupation.

You ever hear the phrase 'the buck stops here' Glurin? The buck stops at the president, ultimately hes responsibe for the policies of his administration. I know its popular in American Culture today to blame others, nobodys ever responsible for anything. Thats why everyone is 'sue' happy. But I'm just a little old fashioned, when you screw up you have to take responsibility, not pass the buck.

garebear2571

02-11-2004, 01:04 AM

Garebear2571, I know the poll is unscientific, thats why it was the first thing I said. None the less, it does reflect a trend seen from other more reliable sources of how disliked Bush is around the world.

I think even powermonger would agree that Bush isn't very liked around the world, though he would read something different into it than I would.

Sorry if Ii wasn't clear in my first post.

Ok it looks like I just didn't read your first post right, thanks for the clarification.

~Gare

Glurin

02-11-2004, 02:17 AM

Your post says it all. You hinge all your skepticism on the fact that we have not proved, beyond a doubt, that every single ton of explosives was present during the occupation.

I hinge my skepticism on the fact that we know next to nothing about what happened.

That's you whole argument: there's a slim, vague, remote possibility that not all of the explosives were present, and therefore we shouldn't blame Bush.

Slim? No. Vague? No. Remote? No. Possibility? Yes. That is my argument. Your whole argument, however, seems to be that since nobody knows what happened or when, they MUST have been stolen and Bush is to blame.

I could of course ask you what reason anyone could have to think that, if there was one bunker full of explosives left there unguarded, the rest of the explosives weren't also there. Given that there's no evidence whatsoever that there weren't other explosives there. I could ask you why, even if it was just the one bunker, you think it's ok that to simply drop those explosves into the laps of terorrists. I could point out that it's now a well-known fact that there weren't enough troops in the country, and that even if, by some miracle, the terrorists had gotten to Al Qaqaa before we did, we know damn well other explosives in country were left unguarded. But there's no point. Like I said, a fully attested documentary endorsed by President Bush wouldn't convince you. You'd start arguing that it might be aliens and mass hypnosis. Anything to get Bush off the hook.

Do you need to rest? Jumping to so many conclusions must be tireing.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the explosives in question were there. There is no evidence whatsoever that conclusively proves anything at all about the missing explosives except that they are missing. I don't think its ok to simply "drop those explosives into the laps of terorrists". If they were removed before the U.S. arrived, the question is not about insergents. Frankly, at this point you've only managed to convinced me that you'll argue anything to lynch Bush.

Father Jack:

Glurin perhaps not all of the missing explosives got into the hands of the insurgenst, but we know that definitely some have. Even if only a box of proximity fuses got into the hands of the insurgents it illustrates the failure of the Def. Dept. to plan for the occupation.

Not necessarily. At least not at the level your getting at. If $50,000 suddenly dissapears from a bank, is it because the bank failed to plan for a robery? Maybe, maybe not. And thats in normal, every day conditions. One thing about the missing explosives is that war is anything but normal every day conditions.

You ever hear the phrase 'the buck stops here' Glurin? The buck stops at the president, ultimately hes responsibe for the policies of his administration. I know its popular in American Culture today to blame others, nobodys ever responsible for anything. Thats why everyone is 'sue' happy. But I'm just a little old fashioned, when you screw up you have to take responsibility, not pass the buck.

Yes I have heard that phrase. IMO, it only serves as an excuse for everyone to blame the top guy for every little thing that happens. Its been taken way too far. I agree 100% that when you screw up, you have to take responsibility, not pass the buck. But the problem is everybody is passing the buck to Bush, regardless of who is responsible and regardless of any evidence or lack thereof. In other words, "the buck stops here" is only good for creating a scapegoat.

Hydro

02-11-2004, 03:01 AM

you're all in a panic there little guy
why freakin' out?

on an interesting sidenote, Bush was voted Movie Villain of the Year for this role in Farenheit 911. i thought that was rather appropriate. he managed to beat out some big names like Leatherface. think about that, people think Bush is worse than someone who slaughters young adults, skins them, and then wears their skin on their face. Bush is WORSE than that. lol, makes me wonder what is wrong with some Americans. well, both are from Texas... so maybe there is something to that.

HEY there buddy!
I am from the heart of Texas and I hate Bush more than most yankees.

bleachy

02-11-2004, 03:22 AM

As a wise man on this board once said, "disexistance of proof is not proof of disexistance."

Hopfrog

02-11-2004, 03:38 AM

HEY there buddy!
I am from the heart of Texas and I hate Bush more than most yankees.
AGREED!
I'm so damned tired of people dissing Texas because they dont like Bush. :rant:

Father Jack

02-11-2004, 03:40 AM

Yes I have heard that phrase. IMO, it only serves as an excuse for everyone to blame the top guy for every little thing that happens. Its been taken way too far. I agree 100% that when you screw up, you have to take responsibility, not pass the buck. But the problem is everybody is passing the buck to Bush, regardless of who is responsible and regardless of any evidence or lack thereof. In other words, "the buck stops here" is only good for creating a scapegoat.

'the buck stops here' was a sign on President Trumans desk, and it was a favorite phrase of his. Thats the reason I used it, because its a presidential quote. The whole implication is that the buck stops at the president. Truman knew that ultimately he was responsable for everything that happened in his administration.

Keep making excuses for Bush Glurin, we all know hes not nearly the president even Truman was.

Glurin

02-11-2004, 05:17 AM

Keep making excuses for Bush Glurin, we all know hes not nearly the president even Truman was.

I'm not makeing any excuses. I am simply stateing the facts or lack thereof.

This is why I dislike most political threads. I've told you people my position on the subject four times already and you can't even grasp that much. The world is black and white to you.

Coltaine

02-11-2004, 06:36 PM

For those of you that had problems with accepting the outcome of the internet poll, the university of maryland made one too. Margins of error are 2-3%.
The only countrys where bush got an majority where Philipines, Poland and Nigeria of a total of 26 countrys polled

Hydro

02-11-2004, 08:22 PM

He has a majority in Poland? That is VERY surprising...

Coltaine

02-11-2004, 08:42 PM

He has a majority in Poland? That is VERY surprising...

Its 26% Kerry 31% Bush
A poll did by a newspaper in Poland came out 40% Bush : 31% Kerry

In the article was speculated that many ppl. see Bush as an alley agains France and Germany in Europe.

Hydro

02-11-2004, 08:50 PM

Its 26% Kerry 31% Bush
A poll did by a newspaper in Poland came out 40% Bush : 31% Kerry

In the article was speculated that many ppl. see Bush as an alley agains France and Germany in Europe.

Ahh, makes sense I suppose.
I am not very brushed up on my Polish news...

Mastgrr

02-11-2004, 09:04 PM

C'mon guys! They're POLAND! That's the reason why they vote for Bush! :D

Coltaine

02-11-2004, 09:34 PM

This information was just confirmed by CNN. (Only for Europe. Don't know whats up with the rest of the world)

powermongor

02-11-2004, 10:04 PM

C'mon guys! They're POLAND! That's the reason why they vote for Bush! :D

Racist comments have no place in a civilized society, even if in jest...

Essex

02-11-2004, 10:49 PM

actually last I checked Poland isn't a race, it's a nation.

Mastgrr

02-11-2004, 11:55 PM

Racist comments have no place in a civilized society, even if in jest...I agree with you. Joking about race is bad.

Andarcel

04-11-2004, 10:17 PM

There is no evidence whatsoever that the explosives in question were there. There is no evidence whatsoever that conclusively proves anything at all about the missing explosives except that they are missing. I don't think its ok to simply "drop those explosives into the laps of terorrists". If they were removed before the U.S. arrived, the question is not about insergents. Frankly, at this point you've only managed to convinced me that you'll argue anything to lynch Bush. I just provided enough evidence to be conclusive in a court of law. Here's more. Just for the fun, because I know you'll keep on saying we "know nothing" anyway. (Here's a thought: how about you try proving we know nothing. I've been laying out all the ways in which we do know everything we need to, and yopu just respond with flat denial. Try proof. Any proof.)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-explosives4nov04,1,1919348.story?coll=la-home-headlines

DwarvenHammer

05-11-2004, 12:10 AM

Andarcel

05-11-2004, 01:36 AM

It's free, takes about 1 minute and produces almost no spam. However, the first two paragraphs should be enough:

"WASHINGTON — In the weeks after the fall of Baghdad, Iraqi looters loaded powerful explosives into pickup trucks and drove the material away from the Al Qaqaa ammunition site, according to a group of U.S. Army reservists and National Guardsmen who said they witnessed the looting.

The soldiers said about a dozen U.S. troops guarding the sprawling facility could not prevent the theft because they were outnumbered by looters. Soldiers with one unit — the 317th Support Center based in Wiesbaden, Germany — said they sent a message to commanders in Baghdad requesting help to secure the site but received no reply."

Glurin

05-11-2004, 05:08 AM

I just provided enough evidence to be conclusive in a court of law. Here's more. Just for the fun, because I know you'll keep on saying we "know nothing" anyway. (Here's a thought: how about you try proving we know nothing. I've been laying out all the ways in which we do know everything we need to, and yopu just respond with flat denial. Try proof. Any proof.)

No, you didn't. You may think a video that nobody can verify shows the victom and an assumption about the time of the incident would be conclusive in a court of law, but I can preaty much garentee you that that isn't the case. At least, not in any court that follows "innocent until proven guilty". The only evidence you've got which is anywhere close to conclusive is what you just posted (which looks to have been published today, judging from the link, so this is very recent information).

Tell me something. Do you blame theives whenever you can't find the remote?

Ifrit18

05-11-2004, 05:52 AM

Andarcel

05-11-2004, 06:27 AM

No, you didn't. You may think a video that nobody can verify shows the victom and an assumption about the time of the incident would be conclusive in a court of law, but I can preaty much garentee you that that isn't the case. At least, not in any court that follows "innocent until proven guilty". The only evidence you've got which is anywhere close to conclusive is what you just posted (which looks to have been published today, judging from the link, so this is very recent information).

Tell me something. Do you blame theives whenever you can't find the remote?
You may think a video that nobody can verify A video certified by the independent news organization that shot it, backed up by repeated testimony from eye-witnesses, and analyzed by expert witnesses would decide the case in any court of law in the land. Except the Glurin court, where no verdict has been reached in human history.

So I'm curious, given that soldiers have come forward and declared that insurgents were looting al-Qaaqaa while American soldiers were there, and they were helpless to stop it, why you think they're lying. Is it that you hate our troops? You think they lie through their teeth for the hell of it?

Now, that remote analogy is interesting. See, if I'm missing a remote, I think I lost it. If you're missing it, you think thieves arrived before you got there and stole it. You continue to think this even after someone shows you a video of it in the room with you, several neighbors come over and tell you that they watched you accidentally drop it in the toilet, and a panel of experts on remotes declare that that is indeed your remote in sewer system.

Again, I'm not interested in convincing you, because you are so totally divorced from reality that nothing except possibly a series of blows to the head might snap you out of it. I'm just amused to think what you'll say next.

Glurin

05-11-2004, 07:03 AM

Thank you for proveing to me yet again that you view the world in purly black and white terms.

A video certified by the independent news organization that shot it, backed up by repeated testimony from eye-witnesses, and analyzed by expert witnesses would decide the case in any court of law in the land. Except the Glurin court, where no verdict has been reached in human history.

Your basis for this argument is a misquote.

So I'm curious, given that soldiers have come forward and declared that insurgents were looting al-Qaaqaa while American soldiers were there, and they were helpless to stop it, why you think they're lying. Is it that you hate our troops? You think they lie through their teeth for the hell of it?

You base this one on a bad assumption about me.

Now, that remote analogy is interesting. See, if I'm missing a remote, I think I lost it. If you're missing it, you think thieves arrived before you got there and stole it. You continue to think this even after someone shows you a video of it in the room with you, several neighbors come over and tell you that they watched you accidentally drop it in the toilet, and a panel of experts on remotes declare that that is indeed your remote in sewer system.

Same here.

Again, I'm not interested in convincing you, because you are so totally divorced from reality that nothing except possibly a series of blows to the head might snap you out of it. I'm just amused to think what you'll say next.

And this one is the final nail in your coffin. You can't even figure out what you are agueing against. Its just "He doesn't immediatly and unquestionably agree with me, so he must be stupid."

Andarcel

05-11-2004, 07:56 AM

You base this one on a bad assumption about me. No. This is me needling you about the fact that you completely ignore the eyewitness testimony of our troops. As you will in your next post, and the post after that. You have, as I've said before, an astonishing capacity to ignore what doesn't fit your ideology.

Same here. Nope. This version of the analogy is based on your posting behavior.

And this one is the final nail in your coffin. You can't even figure out what you are agueing against. Its just "He doesn't immediatly and unquestionably agree with me, so he must be stupid." Actually, I'm not arguing against anything. Reason being, you don't post arguments. I have provided endless amounts of factual support. You have nothing. You've declined my direct challenge to prove any of what your saying. I, on the other hand, invested way to much time in tracking down and gathering the necessary info.

So, what's your next post? What other irrelevancies will you pick at to avoid the actual argument?

Ifrit18

05-11-2004, 08:02 AM

Argh! This thread keeps going...going...going...nowhere.

Bush wins :worship:.

Time to bring out Trogdor the Burnitator!

Glurin

05-11-2004, 09:17 AM

you completely ignore the eyewitness testimony of our troops. As you will in your next post, and the post after that. You have, as I've said before, an astonishing capacity to ignore what doesn't fit your ideology.

That right there is your bad assumption.

Nope. This version of the analogy is based on your posting behavior.

Posting behavior as seen from your black and white viewpoint maybe.

Actually, I'm not arguing against anything. Reason being, you don't post arguments. I have provided endless amounts of factual support. You have nothing. You've declined my direct challenge to prove any of what your saying. I, on the other hand, invested way to much time in tracking down and gathering the necessary info.

Actualy, my evidence is what you provided as evidence. My argument is that you are jumping to premature conclusions, both about the explosives and about me. I proved it by shooting your evidence full of holes. And in typical fasion, you chose to ignore what didn't fit your ideology. Instead of acknowledging what I was saying, you chose to put a label on me and ignore what I was saying.

Andarcel

05-11-2004, 04:59 PM

That right there is your bad assumption. Lets see. I "assume" that you aren't going to deal with the eye-wtiness testimony of the troops in your next post. Then what happens, Ladies and gentleman, lo and behold, Glurin doesn't touch that testimony with a ten-foot pole. Looks like my assumption was right smack on the money. Here's another assumption: you aren't going to deal with the eye-witness testimony in your next post either. Or any post on this thread.

I'll lay 3-1 odds. Any takers?

My argument is that you are jumping to premature conclusions, both about the explosives and about me. This is not an argument. It's what we call a "claim," which should in theory be supported by an argument. So let's look at your support:

I proved it by shooting your evidence full of holes. Yup. The fact that the US appointed government of Iraq, when pressured by the US, conceded that there it was conceivably possible that al-Qaqaa was looted before we got there is to you a hole. The fact that we don't have every single bunker full fo explosives onm videotape (although again we have eyewitness testimony that there was bunker after bunker of them) is to you a hole. As for the fact that our troops sat back and watched the al-Qaqaa get lotted, which was in the latest piece of evidence I provided, well, like I said before, 3-1 against you even mentioning it in your next post.

And in all this, you can't provide a scenario in which the site was looted before we arrived. You haven't even tried, because you know no plausible scenario exists that fits the evidence. The second you tried, the absurdity would become obvious. Somehow, the insurgents apparently got in a facility that was constantly monitored by satellite surveillance and disappeared with 380 tons of explosives.

And through all this, you steadfastly ignore the undisputed truth that there were many sites in Iraq that we didn't have the troops to secure. Even if, by some miracle, the insurgents got to al-Qaqaa first, the unopposed looting that followed Saddam's fall belongs sqaurely and unequivocably to Bush. The entire military knows we didn't have the troops to do a good job.

So here's how the debate stands:

Videotape - flows my way. All you've managed is "well, it doesn't conclusively prove that every ounce of explosives was still present." Sorry. Even if it WAS just the one bunker of explosives, leaving it for terrorists to help themselves - which we did - is atrocious.

Iraqi government - flows my way. All you can come up with is a cosmetic objection based on an escape clause the US pressured them into including. Sorry, doesn't cut it.

Eyewitness testimony - Flows my way. You didn't even touch it, despite constant prompting.

Overall lack of troops in Iraq - flows my way. Same reason.

Constant satellite surveillance - flows my way. Not even a hint at how the insurgents could have pulled it off without it showing up in our film

Unless your next post addresses all these points, I'm going to just walk away. You can enjoy the feeling of having the last word all you want. It's quite obvious to everyone who's engaging in substantive argument here and who's busy avoiding substance for all he's worth.

Oh, and on misquoting: I take that charge very seriously. Show me where I misquoted or drop it.

Glurin

06-11-2004, 02:52 AM

Lets see. I "assume" that you aren't going to deal with the eye-wtiness testimony of the troops in your next post. Then what happens, Ladies and gentleman, lo and behold, Glurin doesn't touch that testimony with a ten-foot pole. Looks like my assumption was right smack on the money. Here's another assumption: you aren't going to deal with the eye-witness testimony in your next post either. Or any post on this thread.

You assume I ignore the eye-witness testimony. I do not. You assume I had already passed judgment on this issue. I have not. You assume I just ignore what doesn't agree with me. I do not. You base these assumptions on A. me disagreeing that this is an open and shut case (which you interprit as "Bush is innocent! You suck!") and B. that I haven't posted on the eye-witness testimonies yet (which you interprit as ignoring). You live in your own little imaginary world, Andarcel.

Speaking of ignoreing eyewitness testimony, I notice you haven't commented on the testimony of Maj. Pearson. Not even a single word on the obvious loose ends with it.

Yup. The fact that the US appointed government of Iraq, when pressured by the US, conceded that there it was conceivably possible that al-Qaqaa was looted before we got there is to you a hole. The fact that we don't have every single bunker full fo explosives onm videotape (although again we have eyewitness testimony that there was bunker after bunker of them) is to you a hole. As for the fact that our troops sat back and watched the al-Qaqaa get lotted, which was in the latest piece of evidence I provided, well, like I said before, 3-1 against you even mentioning it in your next post.

Again you missrepresent what I said. Go back and actualy read my posts.

And in all this, you can't provide a scenario in which the site was looted before we arrived. You haven't even tried, because you know no plausible scenario exists that fits the evidence. The second you tried, the absurdity would become obvious. Somehow, the insurgents apparently got in a facility that was constantly monitored by satellite surveillance and disappeared with 380 tons of explosives.

Your imaginary world is showing again. I would have thought the pre-u.s. arival scenario was obvious to everyone. Apearently I was wrong because you can't even get the suspects right. You won't even acknowledge the possibility.

And through all this, you steadfastly ignore the undisputed truth that there were many sites in Iraq that we didn't have the troops to secure. Even if, by some miracle, the insurgents got to al-Qaqaa first, the unopposed looting that followed Saddam's fall belongs sqaurely and unequivocably to Bush. The entire military knows we didn't have the troops to do a good job.

There you go again with the "He doesn't agree with me so he must be stupid." attitude. You are an arrogant *******, Andarcel.

I have no intention of discussing the missing explosives further with you. You ignore what I say and make up your own twisted fantasy about my posts, giving me no incentive to continue the discusion. Go ahead and walk away. Thats just what I'd expect from someone like you.

As for the misquote: "You may think a video that nobody can verify"

Actual quote: "...a video that nobody can verify shows the victom..."