Friday, October 29, 2004

SOK - Same Old Kerry

Kerry is at it again with this so-called missing explosives story. Back in 1971 he spoke about and even testified that our soldiers were committing atrocities on a regular basis. He tried to say and his supporters say he was blaming the leaders. But that didn't fly then and it doesn't fly now when he tries to say that his blaming President Bush for the incompetence of the troops doesn't reflect on or insult the troops. Just another load of Kerry Horse Malarky.

There has been much detailed information posted out on the blogs about this story and I cannot really add any pertinent details, expertise or analysis on the explosives or military operations. But I cannot let Kerry's self-serving rhetoric at the expense of our soldiers pass without comment. The best place to start may be a video contrasting Kerry's rhetoric with the truth.

VIDEO LINK and sarcasm brought to you by DAILY RECYCLER:

"The right-wing media is out to screw the Kerry campaign! First CBS News tricked Kerry and the Democrats into running "Bush was AWOL" ads by broadcasting what they knew to be forged memos. Now Kerry has been duped into co-opting a phony issue into his stump speeches by the New York Times! We understand that it's an important election -- but it just isn't fair for the New York Times and CBS News to sabotage the Kerry/Edwards ticket in the last week of the campaign!"

Simply put, this 'story' was began as a deliberate (Oct Surprise) hatchet job on the president was immediately picked up by Kerry (tell-tale hints indicate that he had prior knowledge as with the forged document story since KE HQ had an ad ready to release that day plus the reference Kerry made about missing explosives during the debates.)

Without waiting to find out the facts, without any concern about the truth or how his words might affect soldiers in the field Kerry immediately went on the attack.

"President George W. Bush who talks tough -- talks tough -- and brags about making America safer, has once again failed to deliver," Kerry said at a campaign stop in Dover, NH.

"After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq, this president failed to guard those stockpiles where nearly 380 tons of highly explosive weapons were kept. (The NY Times) said the explosives "could end up or have already ended up in the hands of a terrorist group; the explosives might be used against our troops on the ground; and the explosives could be used to carry out a deadly attack against America or our allies."

Sen. Kerry, continued saying, "terrorists could use this material to kill our troops, our people, blow up airplanes and level buildings."

He (said) that the International Atomic Energy Agency "warned that terrorists may be helping themselves to quote, 'the greatest explosives bonanza' in history. And now we know that our country and our troops are less safe because this president failed to do the basics."

"This is one of the great blunders of Iraq; one of the great blunders of this administration," Kerry continued. "And the incredible incompetence of this president and this administration has put our troops at risk and put this country at greater risk than we ought to be.

"Let me say this as directly as I can - that the unbelievable blindness, stubbornness, arrogance of this administration to do the basics has now allowed this president to once again fail the test of being the commander in chief."


How is it Kerry can scream about 300 tons of missing explosives that could bring down a building or airplane and in almost the same breath say we should never have gone into Iraq.

President Bush responded to Kerry's accusations thusly: "Now the Senator is making wild charges about missing explosives, when his top foreign-policy adviser admits, quote, 'We do not know the facts.' Think about that: The senator is denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts...."

Before the day was out, after the front-page, above the fold, hatchet job by the DNC's whore, The Shady Lady (aka The Gray Lady, The NY Times.) the story began to fall apart and sinister overtones of collusion began to crop up. The first (who woulda thunk) interesting tidbit was that CBS had originally planned to release this TimeBomb Oct. 31 on 60 Minutes. With the hope (obviously) that there would not be time to debunk it before the election.

However, the lid was about to come off the story (OR they needed to diffuse the newest Kerry's a Big Fat Liar story) and they knew from experience that it would be ripped to shreds within hours by the blogshpere. They were determined to get it into the public arena quickly in order to get the maximum impact possible BEFORE it was discredited. Hence the front page story by the willing patsy NYTimes.

The story didn't pass the smell test with many bloggers from the get-go. It was just too patently partisan not to be a put-up job. Defense officials say the disclosure of the 380 tons of missing high explosives from Iraq was the work of International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohammed ElBaradei, who is said to be opposed to the United States and has everything to gain and nothing to lose by helping oust Bush (who opposes his re-appointment.)

Fox News also got it's hands on an IAEA report that indicated the seals were virtually worthless since ordinance could be removed through ventilation shafts without breaking the seals. That along with earlier reports indicated there were only 3 tons still at the Al Qaqaa site. But anyway you look at it, even 300 tons only amounts to 0.06% of the ordinance that the military has thus far destroyed in Iraq.

Then during the evening news NBC came out with the zinger that their embedded reporters were with the 101st Airborne that stopped at the munitions bunker and did not find the so-called missing explosives. It was then revealed that the 3rd Infantry had gotten there even prior to that. And even had the explosives remained undiscovered in the massive facility in the days before Baghdad fell, the roads and skies were under Coalition control and no large convoy could have spirited the explosives away.

"The infantry commander whose troops first captured the Iraqi weapons depot where 377 tons of explosives disappeared said Wednesday "it is very highly improbable" that someone could have trucked out so much material once U.S. forces arrived in the area."

"Two major roads that pass near the Al-Qaqaa installation were filled with U.S. military traffic in the weeks after April 3, 2003, when U.S. troops first reached the area," said Col. David Perkins. He commanded the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, the division that led the charge into Baghdad."

However, later an ABC affiliate with embedded reports released a video they had taken and immediately Kedwards and the media wing of the DNC, NYTimes and CBS yelled, in unison, "AH HAH, we told you they were there!" But that story is falling apart as well with the released US military reconnaissance images and other information indicating that the Russians helped remove ordinances to Syria and perhaps Lebanon. They deny it, but go figure. This is not a plucked-out-of thin-air, back in October of 2002, the Federalist Patriot was revealing information that indicated a large movement of weaponry...

"As The Patriot previously noted in October, 2002, our well-placed sources in the region, and intelligence sources with the NSA and NRO, estimated that the UN Security Council's foot-dragging provided a large window for Saddam to export some or all of his deadliest WMD materials and components. At that time, we reported Allied Forces would be unlikely to discover Iraq's WMD stores, noting, "Our sources estimate that Iraq has shipped some or all of its biological stockpiles and nuclear WMD components through Syria to southern Lebanon's heavily fortified Bekaa Valley." In December of 2002, our senior-level intelligence sources re-confirmed estimates that some of Iraq's biological and nuclear WMD material and components had, in fact, been moved into Syria and Iran. That movement continued until President Bush finally pulled the plug on the UN's ruse. " -- Federalist Patriot

Now with all that, one might think Kerry would back off... but OH, NO! Kerry isn't done yet. He thinks this is too good of a talking point to worry about something as trivial as the truth...

Kerry said yesterday, "The bottom line about these weapons that have disappeared. Here's the bottom line. They're are not where they are supposed to be. You were warned to guard them. You didn't guard them. They're not secure. And guess what, according to George Bush's own words, he shouldn't be our Commander-in-Chief, and I couldn't agree more."

Now the commander of a unit that removed tons of munitions and ordinance from Al Qaqaa has spoken to the media.

'WASHINGTON - A US Army officer came forward Friday to say a team from his 3rd Infantry Division took about 250 tons of munitions and other material from the Al-Qaqaa arms-storage facility soon after Saddam Hussein's regime fell in April 2003.

Explosives were part of the load taken by the team, but Major Austin Pearson was unable to say what percentage they accounted for. The material was then destroyed, he said.
The Pentagon believes the disclosure helps explain what happened to 377 tons of high explosives that the International Atomic Energy Agency said disappeared after the U.S.-led invasion.

Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita acknowledged the Defense Department did not have all the answers and could not yet account for all of the missing explosives, but stressed that the major's disclosure was a significant development in unraveling the mystery.'

The Washington Times on Thursday quoted John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, who said he believed Russian special-forces personnel, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material from Al-Qaqaa." -- FOX NEWS

Now that surely would be enough to shut John Kerry up, don't you think? Think again.

"Brokaw: This week you've been very critical of the president because of the missing explosives in Iraq. The fact is, senator, we still don't know what happened to those explosives. How many for sure that were there. Who might have gotten away with them? Is it unfair to the president, just as you believe he's been unfair to you, to blame him for that?

Kerry: No. It's not unfair. Because what we do know, from the commanders on the ground, is that they went there, as they marched to Baghdad. We even read stories today that they broke locks off of the doors, took photographs of materials in there. There were materials. And they left.

Brokaw: The flip side of that is that if you had been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Because you...

Kerry: Not necessarily at all.

Brokaw: But you have said you wouldn't go to war against him...

Kerry: That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons.

Brokaw: But he wasn't destroying them...

Kerry: But that's what you have inspectors for. And that's why I voted for the threat of force. Because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's absolutely impossible and irresponsible to suggest that if I were president, he wouldn't necessarily be gone. He might be gone. Because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war. And we might have gone to war. But if we did, I'll tell you this, Tom. We'd have gone to war with allies in a way that the American people weren't carrying the burden. And the entire world would have understood why we were doing it.
." -- MSNBC

So how many more years would Senator Kerry have waited? How many countries would have had to "understand" before we disarmed Saddam... how many more tons of ammunition and explosives would have found its way out of the country and into the hands of terrorists?

HUGH HEWITT @ WEEKLY STANDARD: "Kerry now closes his presidential campaign exactly as he opened his political life: Attacking the United States military. Thirty-three years ago, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he indicted the soldiers of Vietnam as war criminals, the heirs of Genghis Khan. This week he embraced an already discredited account of missing munitions to attack the reputation of the 3rd Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne. Make no mistake, that is exactly what Kerry is doing when he asserts that deadly weapons went unsecured and unreported as these two divisions rushed to liberate Baghdad."

KERRY ADVISOR JOE LOCKHART: "Early this morning, we learned the Bush campaign's latest strategy for dealing with the missing explosives in Iraq. Today, the Bush campaign booked its number one surrogate and convention keynoter, Rudy Guiliani, on America's top-rated morning show and his message was clear, simple and incredible. He said: 'The actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?'

WordWizard: Guiliani is simply stating the obvious; Kerry is being disingenuous by trying to claim he is not criticizing the president rather than the troops and officers in charge of the ground operations.

MARY MATLIN: "His biggest blunder is, he's still failed, with five days to go, to provide a reason to vote for him. ... He has yet to be positive. ... when people get up Tuesday morning to make that final choice -- they want to vote for something, not against."

She said the idea what someone could have up and gone with 380 tons of ammunition after U.S. troops entered the country isn't even feasible. "It's not like you're sticking it your pants or your socks," she said. "It's like running around [with the ammunition on] the LA freeway with our trucks and our tanks all over."

REP. BOB LIVINGSTON: "There's a strong feeling among the American military that he virtually hates them," Livingston told FOX News, bringing up Kerry's post-Vietnam congressional testimony and his anti-war rhetoric. "He's been attacking the military and this arms deal in Iraq just shows exactly that. He went off half-cocked on a deal with the New York Times and with CBS news on a story that simply wasn't true ... I think that just shows that he's just not responsible enough to be in charge of the armed forces."

PRESIDENT BUSH: "A president cannot blow in the wind. ... Senator Kerry has taken a lot of different positions, but he's rarely taken a stand. ... Consistency is not the senator's strong suit. ... Senator Kerry will say anything to get elected. ... The senator's willingness to trade principle for political convenience makes it clear that John Kerry is the wrong man for the wrong job at the wrong time."

"You can't put a price tag on a person's life. ... "If the commander in chief withdraws before the mission is completed, it's too great a price. ... (It is ) essential that we succeed in Iraq...because if we do not succeed in Iraq ...the terrorists will rejoice."

"After repeatedly calling Iraq the wrong war, and a diversion, Senator Kerry this week seemed shocked to learn that Iraq is a dangerous place, full of dangerous weapons..."

"If Senator Kerry had his way...Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would control those all of those weapons and explosives and could share them with his terrorist friends. Now the senator is making wild charges about missing explosives, when his top foreign policy adviser admits, quote, 'We do not know the facts.' Think about that: The senator is denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts..."

"Our military is now investigating a number of possible scenarios, including that the explosives may have been moved before our troops even arrived at the site. This investigation is important and it's ongoing. And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief."

Captain's Quarters
Belmont Club

UPDATE: John Gibson's WORD on An Explosive Story:

What else does this controversy mean? I think it means the Kerry campaign is desperately worried about Bush's standing with the American people on the issue of terror and national security. If people think Bush would do the better job, then Kerry had to undermine it.

So here came the obliging New York Times, ready to put the worst possible spin on a more or less ordinary story of missing Iraqi explosives. Kerry ripped the headlines from the front page and ran with it:

It's the president's fault soldiers moved on to Baghdad.

It's the president's fault that Iraqis evidently stole some explosives.

It's the president's fault those explosives might have been used against American soldiers.

All in all, it's the president's fault.

But, is that what you think? Do overlooked weapons mean the president has not done a good job, or do they mean the challenger is flailing in the last days... willing to try anything?

I vote for the latter.

That's My Word.

You have a right to your own opinions - You do not have a right to your own facts!