Do me a favor. Go check to find a single war where there weren't fuck ups, and lots of them. Name a war, and if 2 minutes of Google doesn't find a list of bluders perceived in the aftermath, then I shall ..... well I don't know.

I do know there are cave paintings in France calling out Ugh, the chief of the Cro-Mags for screwing up and leaving the fire unattended when he attacked the Neanderthals.

A reminder that Iraq and Terrorism aren't the only issues at stake here.
 

It should surprise no one to discover that your view on "tact" is not mine.

Could this be done even more subtly, and yet equally clearly, without capitalizing on someone's illness? Yes. In fact, the two candidates discussed this issue fairly tactfully in the debate, and without mentioning who was most likely to die next. Anyone want to bet that they, and particularly Kerry, will continue to do so?

That's not really the point, hank. One very strong plank in Bush's platform has been the idea that "Kerry will screw up the war." (I think that he said something like "how can Kerry win a war he opposes?" in the debates.) I think that the polls show that this has been an effective line for him.

So, he's opened up the way things have been handled for debate in the election. Bush denies that any mistakes have been made. The fact that we didn't secure this site is clearly a mistake -- and, no Not Me, I don't think that anyone could argue that the failure to secure a site identified by the UN (elBaradi's nuke inspection group) as the locale for shaped munition trigger charges was a patrol-level mistake. The responsibility for this one lies a bit higher up than with Sgt. Smith of Bravo Company.

Ty quotes from the Nelson Report:

Despite pressure from DOD to keep it quiet, the IAEA and the Iraqi Interim Government this month officially reported that 350-tons of dual-use, very high explosives were looted from a previously secure site in the early days of the US occupation in 2003. Administration officials privately admit this material is likely a primary source of the lethal car bomb attacks which cause so many US and Iraqi casualties. In the first presidential candidate debate, on foreign policy, Democratic nominee John Kerry charged that captured munitions and weapons were being turned against Coalition Forces, with US troops suffering 90% of the casualties. But the specifics of the losses from the Al Qa Qaa bunker and building complex, only now being reported, were apparently unknown outside of DOD and the US occupation authorities. The Bush Administration barred the IAEA from any participation in the Iraq invasion and occupation process, and blocked IAEA requests to help in the search for WMD and other dangerous materials. As part of the UN sanctions regime still in place when the US invaded, the IAEA had “under seal” 350 tons of RDX and HDX explosives, since singly, and in combination, these materials can be used in the triggering process for a nuclear weapon. However, the explosives were allowed to remain in Iraq due to their conventional use in construction, oil pipe lines, and the like. Since the explosives went missing last year, sources say DOD and other elements in the Administration sought to block the IAEA from officially reporting the problem, and also tried to stop the new Iraqi Interim Government from cooperating with the IAEA. But finally, on Oct. 10, the Iraqi’s formally notified the IAEA, and on Oct. 15, the IAEA formally notified the Bush Administration. In press guidance prepared for release in the event news got out, but not released until today, when requested by The Nelson Report, State Department spokesmen confirmed the Iraqi government and IAEA report dates, and that 350 tons of dual use high explosives could not be accounted for. State says DOD has now authorized the Iraq Survey Group to investigate the situation, which, by all accounts, took place in April, 2003. The official press guidance claims “no indications of WMD” at the Al Qa Qaa site, but concedes that the IAEA-sealed explosives were already missing at that time. Some sources say that in addition to the explosives, 20,000 RDX-armed rockets were lost, but we cannot confirm this. However, sources do say that parts of Iraqi Scud engines, and other metal components, have turned up in scrap metal yards in Amsterdam.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc..._24.php#003777

What I heard him say is "how can he ask our soldiers to die, and our allies to help, in the wrong war at the wrong time." As to how to prosecute the war, I believe the President has been consistant that he defers that to the generals.

Again, what I heard was that certainly there have been things that he would do differently now, but that the big decision "do we go into Iraq" he does not see as a mistake. I do recognize the spin from your side on this point was different, and was that everything he ever decided was just a-ok.

And I would hope that it was not up to a political appointee to decide to secure an ammo dump. Do you really think that is for Bush to tell the Generals? War is crazy- mistakes happen. Eisenhower screwed up before the Battle of the Bulge. He was still found an adequate President.

I like this part-

You guys do realize you continue to undermind your broader point at almost every turn, don't you?

1) By all accounts other than the NYT, the material was moved before the invasion began.

2) The material at issue was required to be destroyed by Saddam under the umpteen UN Security Council Resolutions that he was ignoring. The IAEA did nothing about it.

And you guys seem to want to see the bright side of an event that has led to the deaths of US troops.

giving up on the potential of any action from dtb, eh? let me guess - this was intentional.*



*standard Hank response number 471.

bright side? look I'm sorry the stuff got stolen. I'm sorry the UN let him keep it? I'm sorry for every non-terrorist who is killed in Iraq. I am sorry nfh has to take her shoes off getting on an airplane.

I just find it absurd that people nitpick how a war is handled, acting like PI attorneys reviewing surgical records for "malpractice."

everyone else here is grammatically correct all the time. I'm going for the opposite extreme, hoping she'll she me as the most in need. And point of fact, I always admit my errors are organic, and that I believe some others' (PP) errors were/are intentional- I never claim to make errors intentionally.

Ok, we fucked up and everyone fucks up. I will grant you that point to add to your win column.

But, back in those heady days of 2003, everyone still bought the WMD thing, and the IAEA says, Hey look here, this is where we KNOW there are some serious weapons that can fuck shit up. And we checked, and lo and behold! there are nearly 400 TONS of explosives. We were so desperate to find WMDs and show how justified we were in invading that putting that bunker out of business should have been, at the most cynical and not even thinking about the military tactics, a nice little PR prize to show us all how very bad of a man Sadaam Hussain was. Hell, I dunno about you, but that little stat on how one pound of the stuff was used to blow up the Pan Am flight was very effective at scaring the shit out of me. Yeah, this wasn't necessarily a cache of WMDs, sure, but surely they qualify as MWoDs, don't they? I'll grant, at this late date, that the Bagdad Museum shouldn't have been as top of a priority in those early days, but can't we all agree that 380 tons of explosives should have gotten a little tighter of a lock?

Not this one:

At the Pentagon (news - web sites), an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter, the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._agency_iraq_7

a. Not true; and

b. Irrelevant. Why were they not secured?

I find the adminstration's response less than reassuring:

"There are hundreds of tons of other weapons and munitions missing around the country, and it is impossible for the United States to track down all of them, [a senior administration] official said."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ves/index.html

It was there and we knew it was there. And we knew it was dangerous stuff:


"HMX and RDX can be used to demolish buildings, down jetliners, produce warheads for missiles and detonate nuclear weapons. HMX and RDX are key ingredients in plastic explosives such as C-4 and Semtex — substances so powerful that Libyan terrorists needed just 1 pound to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 170 people. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._agency_iraq_7


This is not nitpicking. This is a serious fuck-up. I'd be mad as hell no matter who was president.

A reminder that Iraq and Terrorism aren't the only issues at stake here.
 

Yes, but if you can do it equally tactfully while also adding that little nugget of reinforcement that Rehnquist's illness provides, why not? Some folks need a little proof to bring the reality home.

1. So what?

2. See # 1.

We're not back to Saddam being a danger because he violated UN Resolutions again?

As an aside, the Right's been arguing that Kerry is weak because he'd listen to the UN, yet the chief basis a lot of Righties cite as the basis for the Iraq War is that Saddam refused to listen to the UN. Isn't it a little inconsistent to whack Kerry for following the UN at the same time you're whacking Saddam for not following the UN?

A reminder that Iraq and Terrorism aren't the only issues at stake here.
 

tact·ful ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tktfl)
adj.
Possessing or exhibiting tact; considerate and discreet


Are you using some other definition?

Bush, Cheney Strike Again!
 

This time it's an environmental issue.

http://www.10news.com/news/3847233/d...02000110252004

A reminder that Iraq and Terrorism aren't the only issues at stake here.
 

You can discreetly and considerately mention Rehnquist's illness. That was my point.

Tact is all in how you say it, not what you say.

Exactly. And it is not GWB they are criticizing. It is the guy in the field.

You've got your facts wrong. They sent troops to secure the site but the troops couldn't find anything.

Kerry and Israel
 

Bill Kristol, who many of you have previously indicated you respect, seems to believe that Krauthammer was on to something last week:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/832kszfc.asp

A reminder that Iraq and Terrorism aren't the only issues at stake here.
 

I completely disagree 100%. The consideration is for Rehnquist, and talking in someone's presence as if they were already dead is inconsiderate. When your parent go in for cancer surgery, would you start arguing about who benefits most from the will while they are in the recovery room (oh, and ma, I really hope ya make it!)?

In any case, at least agree that this is a matter of judgment (upon which we can disagree). And the 10 or 50 or 90% of the country who would find your suggested speech tactless, are not necessarily all democrats or republicans. Which is to say, you are likely to piss off some portion of your own constituency along with the opposition. The last thing anyone, but particularly Kerry, wants to be doing at this time.

Bet?

Hello

Cite, please.

Frame by frame
 

For those who haven't seen the wolves ad

A reminder that Iraq and Terrorism aren't the only issues at stake here.
 

Nobody is talking as if somebody were dead. Did you read my suggested text? The trick is to bring up Renhquist's illness as a mere example of the general fact that no one on the Court is immortal. I'd hammer that fact home to women, particularly young women. Only mention Rehnquist as an aside, but make sure you get that little nugget of evidence in there. Saying the Supremes are old is a prediction which can be discarded - noting that one got sick makes the listener pay attention.

Oh, you're right... someone will get pissed off no matter what you say, but I think this fact is too important not to be at least cited. I'd normally agree that the press will take care of that for Kerry, but from what I read about the voting populous, they aren't reading too many stories about the Supremes. I'm a little Atwaterish in that regard.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=195905
oh wait...

A reminder that Iraq and Terrorism aren't the only issues at stake here.
 

Are you trying to get into ABBA's pants, or her liquor cabinet?

Why would the guy (or woman) in the field leave 400 tons of explosives? My guess is that his services were more urgently needed elsewhere. Maybe there weren't enough boots on the ground . . . .

Wronging the Right.
 

OK, all you self-styled conservatives, I'd like your reaction to this one:

Linky

Especially interesting is the endorsement by McConnell, editor of the American Conservative, and Lee Iaccoca.

So, is Bush disturbing enough as a conservative to cause any of you to vote for Kerry? There are clearly some principled conservatives out there read to pull Kerry's lever.

In other earth shattering news, I have decided to cast my first ever vote for a Republican in a local race. I thought you'd all like to know.

• Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said U.S.-led forces searched the Al-Qaqaa facility after the invasion.
  
  ''Coalition forces were present in the vicinity at various times during and after major combat operations,'' he said. ''The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility, but found no indicators of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). While some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals.''

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/299/...Iraq_%3A.shtml

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/299/...sives%3A.shtml

So it is unclear when they were moved. They could have been moved before the troops got there to inspect them. Regardless, the troops didn't find them when they inspected the area.

A reminder that Iraq and Terrorism aren't the only issues at stake here.
 

This?

>>His unfirtunate illness does remind us that the Supreme Court, made up of some of the wisest minds, who have come to their wisdom partly through age, are not getting younger, and God forbid illness should befall any of them, or they decide to retire, the next president will be able to shape the Court for decades to come. Ladies and gentlemen, do not forget that the most activist righist jurists on the panel - the ones Bush admits favoring the most - are also the youngest. Should Bush get to appoint another of like mind, there could be a Scalia/Thomas dominated court.<<

This is arguing about the will while Mom is sleeping. Do you think people would hear this and not think that you are talking about the potential results of Rehnquist's illness? You can have the last word, I think we are boring people again.

Hello

Read the BG links I posted. Either they were moved before the troops arrived to inspect, or they were there and the troops didn't find them.

A reminder that Iraq and Terrorism aren't the only issues at stake here.
 

Depends what she has in the cabinet.

The failure to secure the facility is inexcusable, seeing as how twe knew the explosives were there before the war. Too bad Rumsfeld's incompetence is leading to further American deaths. I don't see why you Rs put up with this guy.

Wronging the Right.
 

No, but I would have preferred McCain to Bush.

Kerry and Israel
 

2.

Wronging the Right.
 

McCain is a good guy and I respect him for speaking his mind, but he is an idiot. Just look at campaign finance reform. Everyone told him there were holes you could drive a truck through and that it would make things worse, but he wouldn't listen. Then he acts shocked with the amounts of money still blowing through the system. Serves him right for trying to curtail political speech.

Wronging the Right.
 

I am no fan of campaign finance reform because, as you say, it suppresses political speech. The real problem with campaigns isn't the money. It is that voters are so stupid and lazy that you can influence how they vote with sound bites and 30 sec TV commercials. If electorate spent more time trying to understand the issues and voted on substance not sound bites, the $$ wouldn't be a problem.

But no candidate is perfect and I still think McCain would have been a better prez than Bush.

Wronging the Right.
 

As more of a Libertarian leaning Republican than anything else, Bush is causing me to vote for Kerry.