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.