Posted on 10/27/2004 1:08:34 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
Unbeknownst to the Kerry camp when they decided to cooperate with cBS/NYT on the missing explosives story, they've effectively argued for the military action in Iraq... and in fact, are now supporting the notion that stalling at the U.N. was a waste of valuable time.
According to John Kerry's spokesman, Joe Lockhart,
"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. They were urgently and specifically informed that terrorists could be helping themselves to the most dangerous explosives bonanza in history, but nothing was done to prevent it from happening."
First, if the explosives can used to blow up airplanes and level buildings, they should be considered weapons of mass destruction. Or is there now a qualification on how "mass" the destruction must be before it rises to the definition? Is 100 people dying in an exploding airplane enough? How about 1,000 people dying in an exploding subway? What about 5,000 people dying in a leveled building? Or do we need hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths before considering it a WMD? Afterall, Anthrax is considered a WMD and the Anthrax attacks in 2001 only claimed 5 lives.
Second, the Kerry camp says the Bush administration knew where the stockpile was and was urgently and specifically informed terrorists could be helping themselves to the stockpile. Well, this is the very argument the Kerry camp and the entire Left refused to accept in the runup to the war, as they staged anti-war protests. And to this day, they continue to assert "Bush lied" about the dangers of Saddam, his weapons and the opportunity he had to hand them off to terrorists.
Third, the Kerry camp is now saying we didn't act soon enough to secure these explosives that were removed before the American military arrived. Maybe it was because we were wasting our time at the U.N. trying to placate countries that were conspiring with Saddam to stop our invasion.
At least they're now admitting the dangers and recognizing that we should've acted sooner about the dangers of a Saddam regime with powerful and deadly weapons. I just hope it's not too late for folks like Joe Lockhart, John Kerry and John Edwards to act on their new found support of the Bush administration. Let's cross our fingers they haven't voted early and still have a chance to vote the Commander in Chief they seem to support - George W. Bush.
This should be called the "October Paradox".
But - Kerry isn't saying there will be more "bad news" by accident. There absolutely are additional stories lined up to come out. By the way, I'm sure CBS and NYT agreed on the timing to coordinate with Kerry's campaign needs. It's obvious, isn't it? I think Thornburg should resign from his Rathergate assignment in protest.
ping
The campaign for President has been way too long for Kerry who did not have a clear position or understanding of issues. Kerry has had too much time and as a result of his lack of spine and grasp of the vital issues has been all over the map. Information to voters now is taking place in real time and Kerry has been held to account for EVERY WORD OUT OF HIS MOUTH. The wheel wobble in his posture and all the inconsistencies (lies) are patently obvious to everyone. All the time he had should have been an advantage, but it has not been. The media has been playing a wag the dog scenario with their man, Kerry...ad he let them.
Man I love this site! ! !
1) The UN should have destroyed these weapons: they were proscribed under the cease-fire agreement.
2) The UN allowed Saddam to "remove" large quantities of these weapons, while they were still on the ground in Iraq.
3) The UN does not even know what quantity of weapons remained at the site.
5) The UN did not "secure" the weapons, they labeled them.
6) The UN did not report its concerns to the US until months after the US invasion.
7) The US has destroyed 400,000 tons of weapons since it arrived in Iraq. The UN cannot even account for what happened to 1/10 of one percent of that amount.
George Bush wants American GI's to secure American Security. John Kerry wanted to continue to let the UN "work."
Who do you want to be President of the United States?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.