Here's the "devastating" article Ring-dinger promised....

[the Talking Can]

but its about Bush....his plan was so incompetant that they didn't even secure the largest explosives dump in Iraq, now it all gone (380 tons) and being used by the insurgents....these fuk tards have to go, you just can't be any more clueless:

here's NYTimes front page for Monday-

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=61cf6e1aa29b7871&hp&ex=1098676800&partner=homepage)


By JAMES GLANZ, WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER

Published: October 25, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, produce missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no-man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished after the American invasion last year.

The White House said President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was informed within the past month that the explosives were missing. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed. American officials have never publicly announced the disappearance, but beginning last week they answered questions about it posed by The New York Times and the CBS News program "60 Minutes."

Administration officials said yesterday that the Iraq Survey Group, the C.I.A. task force that searched for unconventional weapons, has been ordered to investigate the disappearance of the explosives.

American weapons experts say their immediate concern is that the explosives could be used in major bombing attacks against American or Iraqi forces: the explosives, mainly HMX and RDX, could be used to produce bombs strong enough to shatter airplanes or tear apart buildings. The bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound of the material of the type stolen from Al Qaqaa, and somewhat larger amounts were apparently used in the bombing of a housing complex in November 2003 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the blasts in a Moscow apartment complex in September 1999 that killed nearly 300 people.

The explosives could also be used to trigger a nuclear weapon, which was why international nuclear inspectors had kept a watch on the material, and even sealed and locked some of it. But the other components of an atom bomb - the design and the radioactive fuel - are more difficult to obtain. "This is a high explosives risk, but not necessarily a proliferation risk," one senior Bush administration official said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency 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, European diplomats said in interviews last week. Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded, beyond the fact that the occupation force was overwhelmed by the amount of munitions they found throughout the country.....


..... Dr. Omar said that after the American-led invasion, the sites containing the explosives were under the control of the Coalition Provisional Authority, an American-led entity that was the highest civilian authority in Iraq until it handed sovereignty of the country over to the interim government on June 28.

"After the collapse of the regime, our liberation, everything was under the coalition forces, under their control," Dr. Omar said. "So probably they can answer this question, what happened to the materials."

Officials in Washington said they had no answers to that question. One senior official noted that the Qaqaa complex where the explosives HMX and RDX were stored was listed as a "medium priority" site on the Central Intelligence Agency's list of more than 500 sites that needed to be searched and secured during the invasion. In the chaos that followed the invasion, many of those sites, even some considered a higher priority, were never secured.

....By late 2003, diplomats said, I.A.E.A. experts had obtained commercial satellite photos of Al Qaqaa showing that two of roughly 10 bunkers that contained HMX appeared to have been leveled by titanic blasts, apparently during the war. They presumed some of the HMX had exploded, but that is unclear.

Other HMX bunkers were untouched. Some were damaged but not devastated. I.A.E.A. experts say they assume that just before the invasion the Iraqis followed their standard practice of moving crucial explosives out of buildings, so they would not be tempting targets. If so, the experts say, the Iraqi must have broken I.A.E.A. seals on bunker doors and moved most of the HMX to nearby fields, where it would have been lightly camouflaged - and ripe for looting.

But the Bush administration would not allow the agency back into the country to verify the status of the stockpile. In May 2004, Iraqi officials say in interviews, they warned L. Paul Bremer III, the American head of the occupation authority, that Al Qaqaa had probably been looted. It is unclear if that warning was passed anywhere. Efforts to reach Mr. Bremer by telephone were unsuccessful. But by that time, the Americans were preoccupied with the transfer of authority to Iraq, and the insurgency was gaining strength. "It's not an excuse," said one senior administration official. "But a lot of things went by the boards."

"Should we have gone there? Definitely," said one senior administration official. "But there are a lot of things we should have done, and didn't."

[RINGLEADER]

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Thankfully, John Kerry is on the Today show tomorrow saying that if he is elected there will never be another terrorist attack on any American. He even guarantees it.

[WilliamTheIrish]

I read an article that stated Hussein had over 600k tons of munitions in al Anbar province alone.

That's a an awful lot of IED's

[Joe Seahawk]

Here is the article.. Just exposing another of Kerry's lies.. He'll probably be able to squirm out of this one..


http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041024-110609-9428r.htm

[WoodDraw]

Wow, Kerry's done.

[the Talking Can]

I read an article that stated Hussein had over 600k tons of munitions in al Anbar province alone.

That's a an awful lot of IED's

uh yeah....and we let them take it

[the Talking Can]

Here is the article.. Just exposing another of Kerry's lies.. He'll probably be able to squirm out of this one..


http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041024-110609-9428r.htm


I'd change the subject too if I were you.

God forbid we hold the Commander in Chief responsible for anything that has happened in Iraq.

[MadProphetMargin]

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Thankfully, John Kerry is on the Today show tomorrow saying that if he is elected there will never be another terrorist attack on any American. He even guarantees it.

That was foolish. Of course, he isn't the president then or now, when the site is/was being looted.

Way to go, Bush & Rummy!

[Patriot 21]

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, produce missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.


HUH? This has to be a HUGE intelligence failure. The whole world knows Iraq had no "weapons."

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

OH! But these are only "conventional" weapons? And 380 tons? My WORD! That's 10 whole trailer truck loads in a country the size of Kalifornia.

This is HUGE! Somewhere, heads must roll! (No pun intended.)

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Metrolike]

HUH? This has to be a HUGE intelligence failure. The whole world knows Iraq had no "weapons."

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

OH! But these are only "conventional" weapons? And 380 tons? My WORD! That's 10 whole trailer truck loads in a country the size of Kalifornia.

This is HUGE! Somewhere, heads must roll! (No pun intended.)

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

WTF is your point? So now you are saying we invaded Iraq because they had an army and weapons instead of the WMD reason? Oh, ok.

Or are you saying that 380 tons of ungarded explosives falling into the hands of insurgents is OK. Now they can have real car bombs. The ones that leave a 100 yard wide crater once they blow up.

[Patriot 21]

WTF is your point?

:rolleyes:

If it has to be explained to you, you wouldn't understand.

You better get to class. Come back in about 30 years after you have recieved a real education and we'll talk.

[Metrolike]

:rolleyes:

If it has to be explained to you, you wouldn't understand.

You better get to class. Come back in about 30 years after you have recieved a real education and we'll talk.

Or... how about you post a real opinion instead of a bunch of sarcastic bullshit and 38 smilies? It's kinda hard to understand what your feeble mind was trying convey when you post like that...

[Patriot 21]

It's kinda hard to understand what your feeble mind was trying convey when you post like that...

I'll give you this.....you are a quick study. That is EXACTLY what I was trying to accomplish; to cause someone to THINK! :hmmm:

As quick as you are, I'd say you will figure it out very soon! (Absolutely no sarcasm involved.)

:toast:

[Metrolike]

I'll give you this.....you are a quick study. That is EXACTLY what I was trying to accomplish; to cause someone to THINK! :hmmm:

As quick as you are, I'd say you will figure it out very soon! (Absolutely no sarcasm involved.)

:toast:

I'm still not sure what you were trying to say.

[Patriot 21]

I'm still not sure what you were trying to say.

Fair enough.

Just re-read the article that the talking shit can posted.

While you do, just think about all that the "left" has said about intelligence. Think about all that has been said about Iraq's ties to terrorist networks. Also, look about three paragraphs into the article, you will see the words "60 Minutes" quoted as some sort of a source. Is that supposed to add some credibility to the story? Think!

:thumb:

[Metrolike]

Fair enough.

Just re-read the article that the talking shit can posted.

While you do, just think about all that the "left" has said about intelligence. Think about all that has been said about Iraq's ties to terrorist networks. Also, look about three paragraphs into the article, you will see the words "60 Minutes" quoted as some sort of a source. Is that supposed to add some credibility to the story? Think!

:thumb:

What does "left" have to do with this incident? The fact is 380 tons of explosives were stolen, somebody effed up AGAIN, and it wasn't the Kerry administration.

[BCD]

I'd change the subject too if I were you.

God forbid we hold the Commander in Chief responsible for anything that has happened in Iraq.So, its OK for Kerry to lie?

[BCD]

What does "left" have to do with this incident? The fact is 380 tons of explosives were stolen, somebody effed up AGAIN, and it wasn't the Kerry administration.Yeah, cuz Bush and Co. were over there themselves loading trucks with explosives to personally deliver this shit to Zarqawi...
:rolleyes:

[Metrolike]

No, Bush and Co. were the ones to start the stupid conflict. They were the ones who didn't send enough troops to finish what they started. Now they are in a cluster-**** and the things are getting worse everyday.

[the Talking Can]

here's the reader's digest version of the article for those of you with reading comprehension problems.....still waiting for a republican to hold the Commander in Chief responsible for anything:

link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/index.html)

IAEA: Tons of Iraq explosives missing

Monday, October 25, 2004 Posted: 8:51 AM EDT (1251 GMT)


VIENNA, Austria (CNN) -- Some 380 tons of explosives, powerful enough to be used to detonate nuclear warheads, are missing from a former Iraqi military facility that was supposed to be under American control, according to the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog.

Melissa Fleming, spokeswoman for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told CNN the Iraqi interim government reported to the agency several days ago that the explosives were missing from the Al Qaqaa complex, south of Baghdad.

The explosives -- considered powerful enough to demolish buildings or detonate nuclear warheads -- were under IAEA control until the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. IAEA workers left the country before the fighting began.

"Our immediate concern is that if the explosives did fall into the wrong hands they could be used to commit terrorist acts and some of the bombings that we've seen," Fleming said. She said the IAEA doesn't know if some of the explosives may already have been used.

A European diplomat told The New York Times that Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA, is "extremely concerned" about the potentially "devastating consequences" of the vanished stockpile.

"The immediate danger" of the lost stockpiles is its potential use by insurgents to make small, but powerful, explosive devices, an expert said. The expert said the explosives could be easily transported across the Middle East.

According to The Times, the stockpiles missing from Al Qaqaa are the strongest and fastest in common use by militaries around the globe.

The Iraqi letter to IAEA identified the vanished explosives as containing 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or "high melting point explosive," 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or "rapid detonation explosive," among other designations, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or "pentaerythritol tetranitrate."

Fleming said the IAEA, whose mission is to keep track of everything with potential nuclear weapons applications, had been monitoring about 100 sites in Iraq, but there were only a few of special concern, including Al Qaqaa.

"The concern is that other sites that have items that are potentially dangerous have gone missing," Fleming added.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry decried the missing explosives, after seeing The New York Times report in Monday's editions.

In the statement, Kerry senior adviser Joe Lockhart said: "The Bush administration must answer for what may be the most grave and catastrophic mistake in a tragic series of blunders in Iraq.

"How did they fail to secure nearly 380 tons of known, deadly explosives despite clear warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency to do so? And why was this information unearthed by reporters -- and was it covered up by our national security officials?

"These explosives can be used to blow up airplanes, level buildings, attack our troops and detonate nuclear weapons. The Bush administration knew where this stockpile was, but took no action to secure the site."

Kerry criticized Bush for his "stunning incompetence."

There was no response from the Bush administration on the missing explosives.

[BCD]

No, Bush and Co. were the ones to start the stupid conflict. They were the ones who didn't send enough troops to finish what they started. Now they are in a cluster-**** and the things are getting worse everyday.NO! THE ****ING TERRORSITS started this shit!

[Metrolike]

NO! THE ****ING TERRORSITS started this shit!

Hahahahaha.

I agree, but what did they have to do with Iraq, I don't know. It's funny how you eat that shit up when Bush tells you invading Iraq is fighting terrorism.

[BCD]

Hahahahaha.

I agree, but what did they have to do with Iraq, I don't know. It's funny how you eat that shit up when Bush tells you invading Iraq is fighting terrorism.No, but I believe a free Iraq is not only good for the region, but good for America...

Ok, you win. We should just put Saddam back in power. This way he can kill another 400,000 of his people, and finance homocide bombers in Israel...

[the Talking Can]

here's the story from Fox News for those of you who only read biased sources.....Bush had neither the plan nor troops neccessary to protect the largest explosive dump in Iraq, that's geenyus folks:

Fox News, fair and balanced (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136466,00.html)

..."On Oct. 10, the IAEA received a declaration from the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology informing us that approximately 350 tons of high explosive material had gone missing," Fleming said.

The Iraqis told the agency the materials had been stolen and looted because of a lack of security at governmental installations, Fleming said.

...President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleeza Rice, was informed of the missing explosives in the past month, the report said. It said Iraq's interim government recently warned the United States and U.N. nuclear inspectors that the explosives had vanished.

[Metrolike]

No, but I believe a free Iraq is not only good for the region, but good for America...

Ok, you win. We should just put Saddam back in power. This way he can kill another 400,000 of his people, and finance homocide bombers in Israel...

homocide = not a word
I think you meant "homicide", which wouldn't be correct in this case either. It's "suicide" bombers. But yeah, keep watching Fox and eating the shit up.

The world maybe better without Saddam, but the Iraqis are not having it any better right now, losing more than a 1000 Americans is not worth it and there were much better alternatives for removing Saddam than singlehandedly fighting and financing the war.

Besides you keep falling back on the "wolrd is a better place without Saddam" argument. But I would like to see how many people would have supported the war had they been given THIS reason since the beginning. LMAO, this is so sad, it's funny.

[Radar Chief]

I'd change the subject too if I were you.


Says the guy posting a topic specifically to distract from “Ring Dinger's ‘Devastating’ article”.

[BCD]

homocide = not a word
I think you meant "homicide", which wouldn't be correct in this case either. It's "suicide" bombers. But yeah, keep watching Fox and eating the shit up.

The world maybe better without Saddam, but the Iraqis are not having it any better right now, losing more than a 1000 Americans is not worth it and there were much better alternatives for removing Saddam than singlehandedly fighting and financing the war.

Besides you keep falling back on the "wolrd is a better place without Saddam" argument. But I would like to see how many people would have supported the war had they been given THIS reason since the beginning. LMAO, this is so sad, it's funny.Grow up! 'I' is right next to 'O' on my keyboard, asshat! Sorry for my typo. They are homicide bombers. Anyone who straps explosives to themselves to kill other people is homicidal! If the bomber only kills himself, then its suicide. They kill people around them, also. Murder=homicide!

[BCD]

Besides you keep falling back on the "wolrd is a better place without Saddam" argument. But I would like to see how many people would have supported the war had they been given THIS reason since the beginning. LMAO, this is so sad, it's funny.Kosovo? Milosevic? Worked for Clinton... *edit: without UN approval, I might add...

I don't care, really. Saddam is gone. That is all that matters. He should've been removed 13 years ago...

[Radar Chief]

homocide = not a word
I think you meant "homicide", which wouldn't be correct in this case either. It's "suicide" bombers. But yeah, keep watching Fox and eating the shit up.


Odd, I thought “homicide” fitting, considering they’re committing the act specifically to murder, and I realize this doesn’t fit your rhetoric, so yea “keep watching CNN and eating the shit up.”

The world maybe better without Saddam, but the Iraqis are not having it any better right now, losing more than a 1000 Americans is not worth it and there were much better alternatives for removing Saddam than singlehandedly fighting and financing the war.


So the Iraqis aren’t having it any better than filling up mass graves with women and children? There not better off than being thrown feet first into wood chippers?
And I suppose Australia and UK don’t count on you global test?

Besides you keep falling back on the "wolrd is a better place without Saddam" argument. But I would like to see how many people would have supported the war had they been given THIS reason since the beginning. LMAO, this is so sad, it's funny.

So I take it you just started listening to “the argument” yesterday? This is one of several reasons given for fighting Saddam. But you are right about one thing, blindness this severe is truly sad, although I don’t find it the least bit funny.

[Metrolike]

Grow up! 'I' is right next to 'O' on my keyboard, asshat! Sorry for my typo. They are homicide bombers. Anyone who straps explosives to themselves to kill other people is homicidal! If the bomber only kills himself, then its suicide. They kill people around them, also. Murder=homicide!

LOL, that wasn't the point. And they are called suicide bombers, they have been called that since forever. It doesn't really matter what they are called, it doesn't change the fact they are insane.

[Metrolike]

Kosovo? Milosevic? Worked for Clinton... *edit: without UN approval, I might add...

I don't care, really. Saddam is gone. That is all that matters. He should've been removed 13 years ago...

Ahh, finally you speak the truth, you don't really care. Saddam is gone and that is all the matters. I could have sworn you were trying to say something about terrorism a few posts before.

[BCD]

There not better off than being thrown feet first into wood chippers

You are wrong, sir. It was a plastic shredder. Get your facts straight, man. You just eat that shit they serve on FOX...
:D

[Metrolike]

So I take it you just started listening to “the argument” yesterday? This is one of several reasons given for fighting Saddam. But you are right about one thing, blindness this severe is truly sad, although I don’t find it the least bit funny.

The argument was to remove Saddam because he was getting ready to use WMD's. Well, that turned out to be BS. Like I said, the war would not be supported by people were they given the current reason.

[BCD]

Ahh, finally you speak the truth, you don't really care. Saddam is gone and that is all the matters. I could have sworn you were trying to say something about terrorism a few posts before.Ah, typical liberal spin...


BTW, did you notice YOUR typo in the post for which you attacked me on? I love irony...

[Metrolike]

You are wrong, sir. It was a plastic shredder. Get your facts straight, man. You just eat that shit they serve on FOX...
:D

Yeah, there are always incidents of torture under a dictator, but at least people live their lives in relative peace and not in a war time chaos. I am not protecting Saddam, I'm saying the war was a mistake.

[Metrolike]

Ah, typical liberal spin...


BTW, did you notice YOUR typo in the post for which you attacked me on? I love irony...

That's all you can say? That's pretty pathetic, my friend. The typo had nothing to do with my argument, you can forget it. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings by bringing it up. Enjoy the irony all you want since you really can't enjoy proving me wrong.

[BCD]

Yeah, there are always incidents of torture under a dictator, but at least people live their lives in relative peace and not in a war time chaos. I am not protecting Saddam, I'm saying the war was a mistake.What about the action in Kosovo in '99? You know, genocide, mass graves, etc. Saddam may have actually killed more people than Milosevic...

[BCD]

That's all you can say? That's pretty pathetic, my friend. The typo had nothing to do with my argument, you can forget it. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings by bringing it up. Enjoy the irony all you want since you really can't enjoy proving me wrong.I don't have to prove you wrong, I already know you are...
:p

[Radar Chief]

He should've been removed 13 years ago...

Exactly. I wish “Daddy” Bush would’ve had the fortitude to do this same thing 13 years ago instead of handing the problem off to a younger generation, but cry’n ‘bout that now doesn’t get anything done about the situation.

[Metrolike]

What about the action in Kosovo in '99? You know, genocide, mass graves, etc. Saddam may have actually killed more people than Milosevic...

SIGH, please stop bringing this up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we did not actaully invade and occupy Kosovo to fight the "inusrgents" there. We didn't lose 1000 of our servicemen and women out there.

[Metrolike]

I don't have to prove you wrong, I already know you are...
:p

LMAO, keep telling yourself that. I haven't seen an argument out of you yet that held up to anything I said.

[Radar Chief]

The argument was to remove Saddam because he was getting ready to use WMD's. Well, that turned out to be BS. Like I said, the war would not be supported by people were they given the current reason.

The “argument” included multiple reasons that you apparently wish to ignore. WMD’s was but one.

[BCD]

SIGH, please stop bringing this up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we did not actaully invade and occupy Kosovo to fight the "inusrgents" there. We didn't lose 1000 of our servicemen and women out there.Nice deflection...

[Metrolike]

Nice deflection...

WTF??? You brought it up. Are you seriouosly that desperate?

And RadarChief, say what you will but the argument to invade Iraq was "terrorism" and "WMD's" both of which turned out to be BS. Then after realizing how full of shit they were, BushCo decided to convince people the war was good because it took care of Saddam. People like BigChiefDave, here, obviously bought it.

[Radar Chief]

And RadarChief, say what you will

Thank you, but I was going to do that with or without your permission.

but the argument to invade Iraq was "terrorism" and "WMD's"

Again, your ignoring a lot of “argument” in order to render it down to those two reasons.

both of which turned out to be BS.

Uh do what? :spock: The 9-11 commission agreed that Saddam had ties to al-Quada, he openly supported Hammas and those aren’t exactly boy scouts over there sawing heads off.
And even the Duelfer report doesn’t account for the thousands of gallons of nerve/blister agents along with thousands of liters of Anthrax that the UN found through years of inspections and were never confirmed destroyed. Where’d these "WMD’s" go?

Then after realizing how full of shit they were, BushCo decided to convince people the war was good because it took care of Saddam. People like BigChiefDave, here, obviously bought it.

Yea, or maybe they’re trying to restate the previous arguments that some keep attempting to ignore. :rolleyes:

[Cochise]

SIGH, please stop bringing this up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we did not actaully invade and occupy Kosovo to fight the "inusrgents" there. We didn't lose 1000 of our servicemen and women out there.

So why is it that it was OK to intervene in Kosovo? The stated reason was to stop oppression and human rights abuses. The United States provided over 90% of the military power in that one, too.

[BCD]

WTF??? You brought it up. Are you seriouosly that desperate?

And RadarChief, say what you will but the argument to invade Iraq was "terrorism" and "WMD's" both of which turned out to be BS. Then after realizing how full of shit they were, BushCo decided to convince people the war was good because it took care of Saddam. People like BigChiefDave, here, obviously bought it.The WMDs wasn't BS. EVERYONE including KERRY said Saddam had WMDs. I would like to know what the **** happened to them! We know he had them, we've got the damned reciepts...

[Patriot 21]

It doesn't really matter what they are called.......

So why did you start yet another argument about that if it doesn't matter? :hmmm:

[Metrolike]

So why did you start yet another argument about that if it doesn't matter? :hmmm:

I didn't realize I did.

And yeah of course there were WMD's. Bush says so HIMSELF. It doesn't really matter that the inspectors weren't finding shit.

[BCD]

I didn't realize I did.

And yeah of course there were WMD's. Bush says so HIMSELF. It doesn't really matter that the inspectors weren't finding shit.You don't know jack... Past inspection showed he had stockpiles of nerve agents. He also had some 10,000 liters of Anthrax(RadarChief already mentioned this) No documentation on how this stuff was disposed of. Its NOT what Bush SAID its what intelligence showed. The same intelligence Kerry and other democraps had.

[BIG_DADDY]

Bush should have gone to Iraq himself and got rid of that shit.

[Ugly Duck]

but its about Bush....his plan was so incompetant that they didn't even secure the largest explosives dump in Iraq, now it all gone (380 tons) and being used by the insurgents....these fuk tards have to go, you just can't be any more cluelessThe Duckly modus operandi is to make some kinda wisecrack. But this is too dang serious.... this was a HUGE f*ckup that is killing our guyz in the field. This ain't how you "support the troops"..... boot them suckers out of office before they screw it up any more.

[Duck Dog]

This was a huge f^ck up. Why they didn't just drop a few 500 lb bombs on the place is beyond me.

But it's not Bush's fault, it is Rummy's fault. He is the man responsible for war planning.

Hopefully he will retire when Bush is re-elected.

[the Talking Can]

This was a huge f^ck up. Why they didn't just drop a few 500 lb bombs on the place is beyond me.

But it's not Bush's fault, it is Rummy's fault. He is the man responsible for war planning.

Hopefully he will retire when Bush is re-elected.

If Bush really wanted to get re-elected he'd can Rumsfled and make it appear he actually cares what goes on in Iraq.

This is just crazy. We just armed the insurgents with 100 tons of explosives.

[Radar Chief]

If Bush really wanted to get re-elected he'd can Rumsfled and make it appear he actually cares what goes on in Iraq.

This is just crazy. We just armed the insurgents with 100 tons of explosives.

Yup.

[Duck Dog]

If Bush really wanted to get re-elected he'd can Rumsfled and make it appear he actually cares what goes on in Iraq.

This is just crazy. We just armed the insurgents with 100 tons of explosives.


I think he does care.

I should clarify my previous post. I hope Rummy retires before Bush HAS to fire him.

[Ugly Duck]

"I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable," Mr. Kerry said.

Whoa! He said "all" but he missed some.... now thats devastating!

[Duck Dog]

"I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable," Mr. Kerry said.

Whoa! He said "all" but he missed some.... now thats devastating!

Yeah, skerry's lies are never big ones. Just little white lies that do no real harm.