|
Read below Judy. I mentioned this
development.
Jonathan Hughes
Jonathan are you unaware of the Press Conference that
has just taken place where a Major described how
it was his division of the U.S. Military who took care
of these munitions which makes John Kerry look like a
fool since he's been jumping up and down and talking
about how inept the US Military has been in Iraq.
Apparently he has removed all mention of this from his
speeches and his website as of now, but it was his
sole focus for the past few days. Go
figure. 1971 deja vu ...
Here is a good example of what I wrote to Judy this
morning. Here we have two sides with obviously different agendas.
When one examines the facts in this particular case the left has a
point. The right also has a valid point. This is how analysis of
what is happening needs to be done. We need to read both sides, assess
the truth both sides have and then come to a conclusion. In most cases
this conclusion must be treated with some sort of humility as new developments
often change the initial impact.
This is from the LATimes. This is the top article
on Buzzflash.com. Following it is the beginning developments of an
opposing article from the Drudge Report.
Jonathan ChaitFor Bush, Too Late for Honesty
Missing munitions spark an explosion of administration excuses.
On Monday morning, the New York Times reported that 380
tons of powerful explosives had disappeared from a military complex in Iraq
that the American military didn't safeguard. An honest supporter of President
Bush would reply to this by arguing that, despite this mistake, there are
plenty of good reasons to reelect him anyway.
The week before the
election, though, is too late for honesty, especially for a campaign so
committed to the infallibility of its candidate. And so Bush and his allies
have been forced to argue that no, neglecting to guard a lifetime supply of
bomb-making material does not in any way reflect poorly on Bush's military
strategy. Indeed, if anybody is tainted here, it's Kerry. This exercise in
defending the indefensible offers a kind of morbid hilarity. So far, I count
seven distinct lines of argument:
1. Look at the bright side.
Kerry, insists Vice President Dick Cheney, fails to "mention the 400,000 tons
of weapons and explosives that our troops have captured and are destroying."
This is sort of like arguing, "Your honor, the record should reflect the
countless times I've driven to work without swerving onto the sidewalk and
mowing down dozens of pedestrians."
2. Consider the source. Why,
Republicans ask, are we finding out just now about this? Well, for starters,
it was less than two weeks ago that the International Atomic Energy Agency
informed our government of the lost explosives. A Wall Street Journal
editorial imputed dark motives to the fact that the information leaked,
without explaining why the U.S. government was keeping it secret in the first
place, or why the fact that it leaked detracts from the substance of the
story.
3. Don't judge. As the Journal pleaded, "Some 380 tons of
frightfully powerful stuff has gone missing, and the objective before us
should be to locate it, not locate blame." In other words, the military can't
search for the bombs unless the voters withhold judgment about Bush.
4.
Kerry reads newspapers. "What would he do as president? Get up every
morning and say, 'I'm going to govern based on what I find in the newspapers?'
" sneered Karl Rove. "John Kerry will say anything he believes will help him
politically," wrote Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman, "and today he is
grasping at headlines to obscure his record of weakness and indecision in the
war on terror." The horror  Kerry is letting world news infect his judgment.
5. Kerry's a hypocrite. "After repeatedly calling Iraq the
wrong war and a diversion," Bush declared, "Sen. Kerry this week seemed
shocked to learn that Iraq was a dangerous place full of dangerous weapons."
This is a bizarre inversion of reality. Bush justified the war primarily as a
way to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists, yet his handling of it led
to exactly that result.
6. Kerry hates the troops. "The senator
is denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in the field," Bush
insisted. By this logic, any criticism of Bush's military plan amounts to
blaming the troops. By the same Orwellian logic, statements like the one from
Bush supporter Rudy Giuliani  "The actual responsibility for it really would
be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough?" Â do not
count as blaming the troops.
7. It was like that when
we got here. Republicans seized on an NBC News report that a U.S. Army
brigade had inspected the site in April 2003 and found no weapons. This claim
fell apart after NBC and the brigade commander said the Americans merely
stopped at the site without inspecting it. Bush and his allies have since
retreated to claiming that the explosives may have been moved before the war
started. This is possible, though highly unlikely. David Kay, the man Bush
chose to search for WMD in Iraq, said such a transfer probably would have been
detected by U.S. satellites. And KSTP, a Minneapolis TV station that had staff
embedded with troops who went into the area, has footage of U.S. troops coming
across what look to weapons inspectors very much like the explosives in
question, cracking open locks and then departing. There have been reports of
systematic looting since.
But even in the unlikely event that the
weapons disappeared before the war, it would hardly forgive Bush's policy of
invading without enough troops to secure vital weapons caches. The point is
that he didn't plan for the peace, which included safeguarding weapons.
Suppose it turned out that the pedestrians struck by our reckless driver all
suffered fatal heart attacks moments before they were run over. Sure, the
driver would be exonerated of their deaths. But as far as evaluating his
driving skills  or Bush's war-planning skills  it makes no difference at
all.
Below is the current heading at the Drudge Report.
I am sure this will become a full blown article as/if it develops. If
true it will certainly change the face of the discussion.
FLASH 10.29.04 11:36:56 ET /// Soldier
to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with
removing explosives from al QaQaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons...
Officer was ordered to join the 101st airborne on April 13 -- to destroy
conventional explosives at the al QaQaa complex... Developing...
MAJOR: WE REMOVED
200+ TONS OF EXPLOSIVES FROM
FACILITY
Jonathan Hughes
This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any
dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended
recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation
in connection with the above. Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents
sÂy rattachant contiennent de lÂinformation confidentielle et privilÃgiÃe. Si
vous nÂÃtes pas le destinataire visÃ, s.v.p. en informer immÃdiatement son
expÃditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et dÃtruire toute copie
(Ãlectronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information
par une personne autre que le destinataire visà est interdite et peut Ãtre
illÃgale. Merci de votre coopÃration relativement au message susmentionnÃ.
This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above.
Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents s’y rattachant contiennent de l’information confidentielle et privilégiée. Si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire visé, s.v.p. en informer immédiatement son expéditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et détruire toute copie (électronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire visé est interdite et peut être illégale. Merci de votre coopération relativement au message susmentionné.
|
