« Rise Of The Weird | Main | Whatever It Takes »
October 27, 2004
Bush, Iraq and a Final Plea for Sanity
We made it through the whole day without disturbing news from Iraq. That makes for a good Bush news day. Earlier this week 49 members of the Iraqi Defense force were executed for receiving their salaries and riding home on a bus. They did not even have guns to fight back with. Zarqawi strikes again and he even made money this time. It is so bad, that the installed Prime Minister is distancing himself from Bush.
The next day was the weapons cache. Gone, stolen and we are just now finding out. Common sense tells you that there are more WMD's in the hands of terrorists today than there were before Bush launched his war. Whoops. I also read this could keep terrorists in bombs for years.
But I guess nothing is more important than oil, and Bush can halfway protect that. As it is well documented, American forces secured the oil fields before anything else. Never mind the museums, not enough men for that. Bush wanted this done on the cheap. Now it appears weapon caches were not that important also. Got to protect that oil.
And as you can imagine, these oil pumping facilities are constantly protected by our American troops, you know, the good guys that used to live in your neighborhood. You say what's wrong with that. American tax dollars are what's wrong with that. We are just making things easy for companies like Halliburton to get their oil. Are they paying for this protection? I bet Halliburton truck drivers earn more in a week than our American youth who protect them earn in a month. Just making a guess there, if anyone can prove me wrong please do.
And now there is the possibility that our troops will be killed by the very explosives that should have been protected first and foremost. Is it me or does anybody else see anything wrong with this picture? Please do not adjust your set; it does not get any better. Our troops may even be killed on the roadside protecting the oil tankers making Halliburton money. Is this our America?
It’s hard to contain my outrage. It is getting so I want to scream this out loud to everyone I see. The terrorists are making a fool of this President. He can not find Osama bin Laden, he can not find Zarqawi who is brazenly right under his nose. He can not find the Mullah Omar. I wonder if many Republicans still remember one-eyed Omar, leader of the Taliban. Bush is hoping you do not. Mr. Bush can not catch terrorists. Mr. Bush can not protect weapon dumps. He can not protect Iraqi lives. He can not protect American lives.
I hate to be so harsh on our President. After 9/11 Bush had enormous popularity ratings, hell, even better than his dad's. The United States had enormous sympathy from the world. But this President has squandered the goodwill of the world and has squandered the good will of the American public. I was one of those people that used to like him.
The election is in a few days. This sordid ordeal will be over, hopefully. We can have a fresh start or more of the same. Anybody that thinks Kerry will not go after terrorists is crazy; anybody that says Kerry is not fit to be Commander in Chief is crazy. We can talk about Kerry's Vietnam service, what he did with his medals, how he supposedly demoralized troops. I really do not care, the bottom line is Kerry was in a war, I wasn't, Bush wasn't. Kerry knows what war is like firsthand. Bush's daddy was in a war, did anyone ever fault his handling of the first Gulf War? No, it was the economy, stupid, that did Daddy Bush in.
Think before you vote. Does America want to be the outcast of the world? Do we want the United States hated as much as terrorists? I hope any honest answer to this is no. We have been a cowboy nation long enough and the only things cowboys can catch are cows.
Posted by pmcmahon at October 27, 2004 06:47 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.icantthink.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/66
Comments
What strikes me most in your article is this one paragraph;
"The next day was the weapons cache. Gone, stolen and we are just now finding out. Common sense tells you that there are more WMD's in the hands of terrorists today than there were before Bush launched his war. Whoops. I also read this could keep terrorists in bombs for years."
I could not take much more of your article seriously after that.
The whole case you and the media have been making here is the fact there were no WMD’s in Iraq. At least not any that were a threat of any kind. So why from you and the Democrats, all the hoopla about this? Supposedly, 380 tons of weapons and materials that could be used to detonate WMD'S are missing. And may I add, is George Bush’s fault. But, if in fact they are missing and there is a serious threat now, then George was right to begin with, there were WMD’s in Iraq.
If you argue that the weapons are no real threat. Then why the worry? But then you might argue, they weren’t a threat until they became in the hands of terrorist. May I ask you the question, was not Hussein a terrorist?
Further more, the news media has jumped on this story along with Kerry to push their liberal agenda in an attempt to scare people into voting for him. I am seeing reports of time lines proving the theory that Saddam moved the 380 tons before the war. Also, I am hearing interviews with soldiers that were the first to arrive at the sight. There were no weapons there when they arrived.
We do need to protect the oil supplies. The oil wells are important to the economy and rebuilding of Iraq. I am glad our government is concerned about protecting the future of the Iraq’s economy. Looking back at the Gulf war I remember the pictures seen for weeks of the oil wells burning in flames and black smoke billowing into the sky. I wonder how much of our tax payer’s money was used to contain those fires? Not to mention what that smoke may have done to the environment.
Before you “scream this out loud to everyone”, may I make a suggestion? You might want to contain your outrage until all the facts are made clear. You wouldn’t want to tarnish your image the way Dan Rather has, would you?
Posted by: C. Burkett at October 28, 2004 12:51 PM
"If you argue that the weapons are no real threat. Then why the worry? But then you might argue, they weren’t a threat until they became in the hands of terrorist. May I ask you the question, was not Hussein a terrorist?"
At the risk of sticking my neck out on the line and getting pounced on, I just want to point out that this was not material that was in Hussein's control. The material was under International Atomic Energy Agency control until the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The IAEA publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured. Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded.
Posted by: JT Frog at October 28, 2004 04:37 PM
Also, I forgot to add that the reason they were no longer under IAEA control is because IAEA workers began leaving the country before the fighting began. Hence their warning to the US for the need to secure the site.
Posted by: JT Frog at October 28, 2004 04:41 PM
JT Frog,
I urge you to read an article on the whole weapons issue. If you will read with an open mind, the theory presented makes logical sense.
I think our belief systems clearly define us here; I believe the news media is bias, we have seen plenty of proof of that lately. I think you believe they are always telling the truth and have no underlying agenda. Therefore when we read and hear things in the news we see them differently.
I might not be as articulate as you are nor do I have the time to follow every story and every detail as you seem to be able to. But I do watch the news, read some stuff on the net (I am here aren't I), and feel that I follow the news a little bit more than the people around me. When things don't sound right or doesn't seem to make much logical sense, I have to wonder if there is something else going on.
Maybe all this sounds perfectly logical to you; that our Armed Forces are not competent enough to protect us and do their job right. You and others like to blame it on Bush, but I am sure he is not the only one making every decision in this war.
There are many top commanders in our forces that make vital decisions to protect us. When you or anyone else, Kerry in particularly, says that Bush has failed here, they are actually saying that our Armed Forces have failed. How can someone that says that turn around and lead our troops effectively in the middle of a war? Are you aware of the fact that in recent polls 75% of our troops fighting in the middle east are going to be voting for Bush?
We live in a increasingly hostile and self-serving world. To believe that people in high places don't have agendas and are not willing to do what ever it takes to meet their goals is foolishness. Bush included, I have just not been convinced through legitimate proof he has done anything morally wrong here like I have been of others in this battle for the White House.
Go to the story on the link below. It looks to me like the IAEA was not doing their job in the first place. Which in turn put weapons in the hands of a terrorist. If you look at it objectively I think you will start to wonder, who is telling the truth?
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200410271536.asp
Posted by: C. Burkett at October 28, 2004 06:16 PM
Sorry that you did not take my article seriously, but I stand by what I wrote. Also please do not label me as a Democrat, I have no party affiliation. I just call it like I see it.
There were no WMD's in Iraq of the kind that Mr. Bush was looking for. Nuclear, chemical and biological I believe is what he said was there. Plastic explosives were not on that list. These explosives were labeled and inventoried by the U.N. Without researching my facts but going off memory, I believe the last inspection of these weapons was in the December before the war. At the time the inspection seals were not broken and everything was intact.
The reason the soldiers you mentioned did not see the weapons is because they never looked. This is according to the reporter that was embedded with that unit. They stayed the night and then moved on to Baghdad.
My opinion of Hussein is while he was not a nice man, he was recognized as a head of state. Now I do not doubt he supported terrorists causes, but no I did not consider him a terrorist no more than I consider the ruling Saudis terrorists. They also have given support to terrorists causes. Same with Musharrif in Pakistan. That whole part of the world supports terrorism.
As for the media trying to scare us with it, that's a good thing. Why did the White House sit on this information so long? That just played into the Democrats hands as they also sat on the info until the last week before the elections. True that was a political move, but I hope the Republicans do not whine about it. They could have came forward with the information, but chose not to do so.
Yes, oil is important to the rebuilding of Iraq. It is also important to the blow out quarters Halliburton has been having. I ask you again, is it right for our tax dollars and the lives of our soldiers, basically kids in age, to be used in assisting Halliburton's profits?
Bottom line is where are the explosives? Mr. Bush will hardly even acknowledge the question. He just uses it as an opportunity to attack Kerry. Why will he not answer? It makes me think the truth is damning. Somebody has got those explosives and it does not look like the U.S. has got them and the installed Iraqi government does not have them. Not too many other groups in Iraq, other than terrorists.
BTW, Dan Rather is a stupid talking head that I have not paid any attention to in probably 15 years or more. I would find it funny if he ever got what was coming to him. He tried to lie to the American public similiar to George W. so I have no use for either one of them.
Posted by: pmcmahon at October 28, 2004 07:17 PM
I did not read some of the replies posted before I posted my reply. I read though the article you linked and I going to re-read to make sure I get it right. Please no flames for this faux pas :)
The men and women making up the Armed Forces are not incompetent. It is a very top-down run organization which Mr. Bush is at the very top. If it appears incompetent, best look at the top, everyone else follows orders.
Posted by: pmcmahon at October 28, 2004 07:31 PM
C.,
I'm not sure why it is that you feel the need to analyze me. But I'm glad that you have me figured out. I merely pointed out a couple facts and didn't make any representations about what I do or do not believe or who I feel is or isn't to blame. Nor do I plan to state my beliefs on the subject.
As for the article that you pointed to, I don't see how you can think that the National Review is any less biased than any other media let alone that they are objective. And to be honest, I don't think that the American people will ever know who is or isn't telling the truth. That's just the nature of politics.
Posted by: JT Frog at October 28, 2004 07:44 PM
"And to be honest, I don't think that the American people will ever know who is or isn't telling the truth. That's just the nature of politics."
Now that is the most truthful thing I have heard all day :)
Posted by: pmcmahon at October 28, 2004 08:09 PM
This morning I watched videos that were taken by embedded reporters that showed US troops at the munitions site, breaking seals on bunkers and examining these munitions. The video taken by KSTP of St. Paul on April 18, 2003, could reinforce suggestions that tons of explosives missing from the munitions installation were looted after the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. The reporter said that not only did they find tons of munitions at the site, but that after breaking the seals on the bunkers, the bunkers were left unsealed and unguarded when the unit left the site.
"The photographs are consistent with what I know of Al-Qaqaa,” said David A. Kay, a former American official who directed the hunt in Iraq for unconventional weapons and visited the site. “The damning thing is the seals. The Iraqis didn’t use seals on anything. So I’m absolutely sure that’s an IAEA seal.”
Ambassador Paul Bremer told NBC the "Today" show on Friday that the evidence was still far from conclusive about the explosives. Despite the video footage, he is still suggesting that the munitions were missing before the U.S.-led invasion.
Posted by: JT Frog at October 29, 2004 09:59 AM
