T Nation

October Surprise Failure?

By now everyone has heard about the missing explosives in Iraq. It was being used to attack Bush, and make him look bad. But this is not new information. Still 60 minutes was to air a story about it this Sunday, giving Bush 1 day to respond before the election. (Though the story came out Monday, so he actually would have had a week to prepare, but only a day for the big story.)

But before it “blew up”, it was stated by NBC that the explosives were not even there when our troops first got there. Meaning that they most likely were moved before, or during the war.

60 minutes (as I have heard) has dropped the story. So this isn’t going to blow up in Bush’s face, but might actually blow up in Kerry’s face.

I am wondering, myself, if these explosives were moved before or during the war, what else might have been moved?

Mage –

Good thing the NYT got wind of the story so there were two news organizations with very tenuous understandings of the word “unbiased” competing to see who could run with the hit piece. Gotta love a competitive market.

Hey BB

With America moving toward 400,000 tons of explosives destroyed in Iraq, it is entirely possible that we found the 380 tons in another place, and destroyed them. (Unless they are in Syria.)

Now there are soldiers, and other reporters coming forward to say the explosives were not there to lose in the first place.

I am certain that the New York Times thought that a week before the election was enough time to swing the election, and decided to scoop 60 Minutes. But that scoop may have had two effects, causing Bush to be elected, and keeping CBS from becoming a complete joke in the news world, completely loosing the faith of the American public.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Hey BB

With America moving toward 400,000 tons of explosives destroyed in Iraq, it is entirely possible that we found the 380 tons in another place, and destroyed them. (Unless they are in Syria.)

Now there are soldiers, and other reporters coming forward to say the explosives were not there to lose in the first place.

I am certain that the New York Times thought that a week before the election was enough time to swing the election, and decided to scoop 60 Minutes. But that scoop may have had two effects, causing Bush to be elected, and keeping CBS from becoming a complete joke in the news world, completely loosing the faith of the American public.[/quote]

Mage –

Yeah, this is a joke – and in addition to the NYT and CBS, don’t forget the U.N. and the IAEA trying to influence the election.

Also, in addition to what you brought up, I saw another commentator make this sage point:

http://www.truthlaidbear.com/archives/2004/10/26/if_the_explosives_were_looted_why_havent_they_been_used.php#001511

If the explosives were looted, why haven’t they been used?
October 26, 2004 01:27 PM

Another aspect of the NYT story that, logically, doesn’t hold up for me is if the explosives were looted by terrorists, why haven’t they been used yet?

Note the following in the latest MSNBC story:

“But other Pentagon officials, also speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested that the explosives could have been hidden elsewhere before the war. They also stressed that there is no evidence HMX or RDX have been used against coalition forces in Iraq.”

My assumption — and I’d appreciate if those who know such things would verify or correct me on this — is that if these particular explosives were used in Iraq, then the U.S. military would be well aware of it. I assume that they spend quite a bit of time and energy analyzing the methods and means of attack which the terrorists are using against us, and that if this particularly potent type of explosive was used, the techniques and technology are available which would lead to it being identified.

So if these assumptions are correct: how plausible is it that eighteen months after these explosives were allegedly looted by terrorists now locked in a life-and-death struggle with Iraqi and U.S. forces, none of the 380 tons of explosives have been used?

If terrorist groups did indeed loot it, and they have it, what could they possibly be saving it for?


But I think the worst thing is Kerry’s attempt to run with it - he has apparently been leading with accusations during his stump speech concerning the explosives, and has some ads in the works. This in spite of the fact that Richard Holbrooke (a high-level Kerry guy who is set to be tapped for Secretary of State should Kerry win), in an interview with John Scott on Fox yesterday, maintained that no one knows whether the explosives were there, and the numerous debunking information provided by military folks and embedded reporters. I hope this bites him in the ass.

BTW, the NYT has apparently decided to attempt to turn its front page completely into a source of faulty stories critical of Bush – I wonder what sort of “October Surprise” attempt they will put forth today?

Here’s an article from Andrew McCarthy related to the NYT’s headline story from yesterday:

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200410261249.asp

October 26, 2004, 12:49 p.m.
Kerry?s Pamphleteer
The Times is pulling out all the stops.

At this point it is scandalous that the “newspaper of record” pretends to be anything other than the daily Kerry campaign talking-points memo. But don’t expect too much oxygen to be wasted on today’s “talking point.”

In Monday’s score, the New York Times somehow managed ? with national juggernaut success ? to spin as a debacle for President Bush a story about how Saddam Hussein actually possessed nuclear-weapon detonators and other essential WMD components (i.e., hundreds of tons of high explosives) despite years of just the type of U.N. inspections and international “monitoring” that a President Kerry promises to revive.

Buried deep within the story, the Times burbled that, notwithstanding U.N. resolutions seemingly to the contrary, Saddam had been permitted by the vaunted international community to horde the explosives because Iraq “argued that it should be allowed to keep them for use in mining and civilian construction.” Naturally, for the Camp Kerry Pamphleteer, the story in all this was that the explosives are missing, not that the tyrant the Times claims was not a threat had them in the first place, nor that this is what Kerry’s “global test” management promises for Iran, Syria, North Korea, and hot-spots yet to emerge.

Fresh from that triumph, the Times’s gambit today reprises another oldie-but-goodie: the Bush administration’s purported denial of human rights to captured terrorists (to whom it is the paper’s amiable wont to refer as “young Arabic men”).


Thus, this morning’s page-one screamer reports that the administration has reversed itself and is denying the protections of the Geneva Conventions to some of the fighters captured in Iraq ? which, for example, justifies permitting them to be removed from the country for interrogation purposes.

This may be the most transparent example yet (at least this week) of the Times’s trying to make something out of nothing at Bush’s expense. Members of the international network of Islamic terrorists against whom we are at war are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 whether they are captured in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pittsburgh.

During wartime, combatants are privileged to employ military force if they are members of a national army, or of a militia that is part of such an army and that conducts itself accordingly ? meaning that its members are subject to a formal chain of command, wear uniforms, carry their weapons openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. What are those laws and customs? In the Fall 2003 issue of the National Interest, the eminent scholars David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey usefully summarized those long ago accepted “by all civilized states”:

only sovereign states have the right to make war;
civilians cannot be deliberately attacked;
combatants can be attacked either en masse or individually;
quarter is to be granted when sought;
lawful combatants, when taken prisoner or otherwise incapacitated by wounds, are to be accorded the respect and privileges due prisoners of war (POW’s); and
while all forms of force can be deployed in combat, certain weapons designed to cause unnecessary suffering are proscribed.

Terrorists flip these laws on their heads: They are not state actors; they intentionally target civilians; they torture, behead, and otherwise execute their prisoners; and, when not crashing airliners into skyscrapers, they actively seek chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons to maximize carnage. As a matter of law they are patently not entitled to Geneva protections. As a matter of common sense, it would be suicidal to accord them such protections because that would reward and legitimize their tactics.

If there is a story at all in today’s Times “story” it is that anyone ever suggested anything to the contrary in Iraq ? as some administration spokesmen have occasionally done, plainly (if perhaps unwisely) going the extra mile to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Unquestionably, Iraqi fighters captured in Iraq, such as Saddam’s former fedayeen and other loyalists, had a claim to Geneva protections during the phase of the war before the regime fell. They also have an arguable claim to those protections in connection with the insurgency since the regime fell ? although I would argue that their claim fails.

That, however, is all beside the point for present purposes. The administration has not contended that those Iraqi fighters are without Geneva protections regardless of what international law technically mandates. At issue now are the thousands of non-Iraqi terrorists who have moved their barbarous ways into Iraq.

Senator Kerry assures us that, while he would wage a more “sensitive” war, he would slam terrorists just as vigorously as the president. If that is the case, surely he does not think we should treat Osama bin Laden (a Saudi/Yemeni) differently depending on whether he is captured in Baghdad or Kabul. Surely, he does not think we are limited, in the Sunni Triangle, to asking Abu Musab al Zarqawi (a Jordanian) his name, rank, and serial number.

Al Qaeda terrorists do not have any more right to stay in Iraq under benevolent captivity than they had to enter to country and begin murdering civilians and our troops ? not to mention trying to foment civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. Under existing international law, they may not be tortured; and unlike their own practices, we won’t be beheading them and beaming the tape over to al-Jezeera. But, much as this may dismay the Times, they don’t get Miranda warnings either.

A war against terrorists is a war about information ? the intelligence necessary to prevent future attacks against civilians and our military forces. Terrorist prisoners must be aggressively interrogated if we are to get that information, even if that furrows brows down on West 43rd Street.

Just like yesterday’s news, today’s story ? if you read between the lines, rather than just what the Times decided was “fit to print” ? is another reason why national security would best be served by the president’s re-election next Tuesday. War is always messy, but it has to be fought to win.

? Andrew C. McCarthy, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

And then of course there’s this item in what has been a much better paper than the New York Times – The Washtington Post – which isn’t as bad in that it sets it up as speculative, but come on now…

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_10_24_corner-archive.asp#043618

WASHINGTON POST NON-STORY ON THE DRAFT [John Hillen]
The Post has a huge non-story by Tom Ricks on the almost impossible set of circumstances under which a draft could happen?but the story is actually about the draft happening.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A440-2004Oct26.html?sub=AR

Titled ?Small Minority Says Draft Could Happen? the story proceeds to feature the thoughts of a half dozen former Army officers of good intent, but little or no influence (Majors, retired Lieutenant Colonels, etc) who muse on the possible, but barely probable chain of events that could lead to a draft.

All very factually correct (yes, that?s why we keep the Selective Service System around ? just in case), but containing so many what ifs, minority opinions, and caveats that it becomes an enormous half-page non-story.

So, perhaps I?m just paranoid, but why would the Post run a non-story about the draft six days before the election?

I wonder if other urban myths will get this sort of treatment?

?Small Minority Says Redskins Could Run the Table and Win the Superbowl?

BB:

I’m not so sure the Times article did not do some damage. Most voters don’t follow the election as closely as we do. They pick up a headline or an intro to a news story and that’s it.

Unless there is significant backlash in the mainstream media (such as Rather suffered) I think the story hurts Bush.

How am I wrong on this?

Zeb:

I think the fact there has been a lot of more balanced coverage on TV has been helpful – as you sagely observed on the newspaper endorsement thread, the day of the newspaper is over.

Hopefully there will be more of a backlash and more precise coverage on TV.

It would probably be too much to hope that some in the mainstream media would take the facts and examine the other storyline - The “Saddam had 400,000 tonnes of this stuff and would still have it if it weren’t for Bush” storyline.

Just another tidbit, If these 380 tons were moved before the war and we Haven’t found it yet why is it so unbelievable that they could have moved and hidden say 2 or even 100 or even more tons of chemical and biological weapons? Just food for thought. It seems in the days coming up to the election, the left is attacking so many aspects of the Bush administration, that they are actually self defeating half of thier complaints, by complaining both sides of the arguments.

In otherwords, there cant be a missing 380 tons of conventional weapons, floating around the country that we cant find, and at the same time, no possibility of WMD’s floating around the country. Vroom, RSU, you are both logical, does this make sense?

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

The IBD takes a look at the media’s recent history of trying to manufacture October Surprises to hurt Republican presidential candidates:

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

October’s ‘Surprise’

Campaign: Both the Kerry camp and its big-media arm warned of an October surprise. But they didn’t say that they ? and not Bush’s operatives ? would be behind it.

The “surprise”? The New York Times reported Monday that U.S. troops allowed 380 tons of explosives to be looted from a military site in Iraq during the first days of the war.

John Kerry immediately pounced on the news. He suggested the administration’s incompetence may have led to weapons getting into “the hands of terrorists (who) can use this material to blow up our airplanes, blow up our buildings, kill American troops.”

But once again, the big media have pushed a major story late in a campaign that discredits George W. Bush, only for us to discover it was made of whole cloth.

This has become a distressing pattern in recent presidential campaigns. It happened in 1992 with Iran-Contra, it happened in 2000 with drunk driving allegations and it’s happening this year with the ammo dump.

Fortunately, as soon as the Times’ story broke, NBC noted that its own reporters were embedded with the 101st Airborne troops who came upon the munitions site in question. And NBC’s journalists said it was empty when they got there on April 10, 2003. Empty.

There’s no polite way to put it: This story was a lie, apparently cooked up to serve the Times’ partisan ends. It’s not the first time.

Just a week and a half ago, The New York Times Magazine featured an extraordinary hit piece on President Bush’s faith by Ron Suskind. It made no pretense of any sort of balance or fairness, opting instead for dark, unsubstantiated hints that Bush is driven by religious fanaticism and suffers from a near-messianic complex.

CBS, which also acts as if it were a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party, was lucky it got beat on the arms story. It had planned to run it on “60 Minutes” just two days before the election. But it bailed after the Times got the “scoop.”

The once-proud Tiffany Network thus will be spared more egg on its face after being caught using phony documents for a now-discredited hit piece on Bush’s Air National Guard service. What’s truly distressing is CBS seems to have learned nothing from its error. Nor, for that matter, has the Times.

As it now stands, there can no longer be any question: The New York Times and CBS have both become nakedly and recklessly partisan in their search for news to hurt Bush and the Republicans.

Two months ago, after Dan Rather & Co. were caught lying, we had hopes for a housecleaning at CBS. But then, we thought the Times might change two years ago, when the Jayson Blair scandal broke, and Clinton booster and Times Editor Howell Raines was replaced with Bill Keller. No such luck.

Same old, same old, as kids like to say. Just another case of big media bias. But someday, shareholders of both companies, looking at their shriveling shares of the news business, are going to wake up.

Then they’ll wonder why they let their problems go so long. And why they put their prize news properties in the hands of political hacks masquerading as journalists.

[quote]Vegita wrote:
In otherwords, there cant be a missing 380 tons of conventional weapons, floating around the country that we cant find, and at the same time, no possibility of WMD’s floating around the country. Vroom, RSU, you are both logical, does this make sense?

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins[/quote]

Sure it makes sense. Here is what does not: Why have we not found WMDs yet? I’m not saying they weren’t any there, but I am saying that if the administration had any logic, they would have “found” some. Let’s take Clinton, for example–he would have found thousands of tons of anthrax, smallpox, uranium, plutonium, and venomous goat bile. Sure, it may have been made in Oak Ridge, but we would have “found” some.

My $0.02.

~Terumo

Good info, gentlemen.

One question - doesn’t it seem to you that the old charge - there are no materials in Iraq for terror elements to get their hands on - is refuted by the new charge - a bunch of nuclear material in Iraq will fall into the hands of terrorists?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Good info, gentlemen.

One question - doesn’t it seem to you that the old charge - there are no materials in Iraq for terror elements to get their hands on - is refuted by the new charge - a bunch of nuclear material in Iraq will fall into the hands of terrorists?

[/quote]

Excellent point –

And see this article today talking about some of the stuff that they DID find in Iraq, which apparently didn’t satisfy the threshold for WMD that people were applying when the “Bush lied, people died!” drum was the one they wanted to beat:

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200410270816.asp

October 27, 2004, 8:16 a.m.
Iraq?s WMDs: Lost and Found
Saddam had ?em.

Wait a minute ? so there were WMDs in Iraq? The Kerry campaign, the media, assorted pundits, and others are making much of the disappearance of the 380 tons of explosives from the Al Qaqaa storage facility south of Baghdad. According to the IAEA, the U.N. watchdog agency now apparently in the service of the Democratic National Committee, some of the explosives could be used to detonate nuclear weapons. Wow ? nuclear-weapon components were in Iraq? Shouldn’t the headline be, “Saddam Had 'Em?”

The opposition really needs to get its story straight. The president cannot be taken to task for inventing the Iraqi WMD threat, and simultaneously disparaged for not securing Saddam’s dangerous WMD-related materials.

The cache at al Qaqaa was not the only WMD-related material in the news recently. Another IAEA report came out two weeks ago that did not get as much play. According to this account, dual-use equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons was taken from various locations inside Iraq. The Duelfer Report ( http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/ ) speculated this equipment could have been taken during the chaos of the invasion. The equipment was “professionally looted” ( http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.nuclear/ ) by another account, and may have gone to Iran or Syria. Isn’t it significant that equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons was there in the first place? Don’t these constitute components of a WMD program?

As well, if CBS wants to recycle old news in an attempt to influence the election, how about this story: 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and other nuclear material at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center (Saddam’s main nuclear research and development center) was secured by the United States and flown out of the country last July. According to the Energy Department this material could have been used to make a radiological dispersion device (a.k.a. a dirty bomb) or “diverted to support a nuclear weapons program.” The only thing we found in Iraq that was more hazardous than this haul was Saddam Hussein. The United States was able successfully to deny this dangerous material to terrorists, rogue states or anyone else. This good news story dropped like a stone when it came out. And unlike most of the hype of the last few days, this story has the benefit of being true.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/

The missing explosives from al Qaqaa also raise the possibility that other WMD-related materials met the same fate. The IAEA had seen the al Qaqaa material in January 2003, but by the time U.S. troops showed up on April 10, they had disappeared. The dual-use technologies mentioned in the other IAEA report also had been moved or looted. This suggests that still other WMDs and related technologies might have been given or taken away in the days leading up to the war, or shortly after the Coalition attacks began. It is widely believed, though not conclusively proved, that much of this went to Syria. The Iraq Survey Group interviewed Iraqi agents who claimed to have helped moved the WMD materials.


This charge was repeated by David Kay when he left the ISG earlier this year.

The Blix Report found 1,000 tons of chemical weapons missing from Iraq ( http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.excerpts/ ), and last May this column discussed a planned al Qaeda attack in Jordan involving 20 tons of chemicals. The attack was broken up, and the subsequent investigation showed strong links to Syria ( http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200405030839.asp ). Connect your own dots.

So between the al Qaqaa explosives, the dual-use equipment, the Tuwaitha nuclear material, the missing chemical weapons, and the Syrian connection, it sounds like the WMD rationale is much stronger than most critics give it credit for. One can only imagine what Saddam would have done given the chance to put them all together. These are just a few reasons why Operation Iraqi Freedom was the right war, in the right place, at the right time.

? James S. Robbins is an NRO contributor.

BB, as usual, excellent article. Want to requote:

“So between the al Qaqaa explosives, the dual-use equipment, the Tuwaitha nuclear material, the missing chemical weapons, and the Syrian connection, it sounds like the WMD rationale is much stronger than most critics give it credit for. One can only imagine what Saddam would have done given the chance to put them all together. These are just a few reasons why Operation Iraqi Freedom was the right war, in the right place, at the right time.”

WMD in Iraq, No!!!

I will never believe it!!!

Bush lied, kids died!!!

At least when Clinton lied, no one died!!!

I’m a Democrat/ostrich and I can’t put these things into my micro-brain!!!

I never got picked for kickball!!! I don’t know my father!!! These are all W.'s fault!!!

Might as well start sending lawyers into Florida (catch the nine frivilous lawsuits already?)

Come on over to THE CHALLENGE and put your money where your mouth is!!!

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
BB, as usual, excellent article. Want to requote:

“So between the al Qaqaa explosives, the dual-use equipment, the Tuwaitha nuclear material, the missing chemical weapons, and the Syrian connection, it sounds like the WMD rationale is much stronger than most critics give it credit for. One can only imagine what Saddam would have done given the chance to put them all together. These are just a few reasons why Operation Iraqi Freedom was the right war, in the right place, at the right time.”

WMD in Iraq, No!!!

I will never believe it!!!

Bush lied, kids died!!!

At least when Clinton lied, no one died!!!

I’m a Democrat/ostrich and I can’t put these things into my micro-brain!!!

I never got picked for kickball!!! I don’t know my father!!! These are all W.'s fault!!!

Might as well start sending lawyers into Florida (catch the nine frivilous lawsuits already?)

Come on over to THE CHALLENGE and put your money where your mouth is!!!

JeffR

[/quote]

I remember someone commenting on his/her belief that T-Nation was one of the best forums he/she had found on the internet regarding political debate. What a complete joke. To that person: where else have you been looking that this tops your list?

Hey Moriarty,

Thanks for the compliment!!!

Care to come on over to THE CHALLENGE and show your support for the terrific John Kerry!!!

By the way, you should lift some weights. It allows you to lead a cheerful existence.

It is the great equalizer. You can’t pull your Democratic tactic of calling out lawyers when you can’t lift a weight.

It’s all about you. Brutally honest self-evaluation. I’ll bet you don’t lift for that reason alone.

Come on over!!!

JeffR

Moriarty, if you skip the posts of certain people… such that they don’t drag down the actual intelligent material, it’s really pretty good much of the time.

But not always! :stuck_out_tongue:

By the way, I think election fever has hit, things will probably slowly return to normal in the months following the election – once the “I told you so” level subsides.

The explosives were conventional weapons, not WMD.

This is more evidence that Bush’s planning sucked… they didn’t have the manpower to guard facilities like this, they were tto busy guarding the oil fields.

One of the inspectors said there was traces in at least one of the bombings.

This is only an OCTOBER surprise because Team Bush tried to supress this information from getting to the public. The Department of Defense was pressuring the Iraqis to keep quiet, while we scrambled around trying to track the explosives down. Eventually somebody leaked. If Team Bush would have disclosed this story themselves when it first happened months ago, it would have been more-or-less forgotten… just another item on the list of “Iraq screwups” that the president is fending off.

However Team Bush has a pathological resistance to admitting mistakes, and I suppose once you take that stance, it’s hard to change, no matter how pathetic and ridiculous you appear.

An interesting update… of the 2 types of explosives, it may be that there was FAR less of the less-deadly kind (but still over 100 tons of the more-deadly kind).

LOL at the dim bulb who said this story “might blow up in Kerry’s face”.

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
The explosives were conventional weapons, not WMD.[/quote]

Did you read the article? It also referenced uranium and equipment for producing nuclear weapons.

If it didn’t happen – which you, Kerry, and Richard Holbrooke don’t know – and it seems very likely it was moved prior to our arrival in Iraq – then it isn’t evidence of anything other than your candidate’s and his shills’ desperate attempt to grasp at straws.

[quote] My assumption — and I’d appreciate if those who know such things would verify or correct me on this — is that if these particular explosives were used in Iraq, then the U.S. military would be well aware of it.

One of the inspectors said there was traces in at least one of the bombings.[/quote]

You have a source for that? I haven’t seen it.

And, even so, do you really think that traces in one bombing disproves the point, given we’re talking about 380 tonnes?

This WAS reported back when it happened – and it was basically ignored. The Seattle Post Intelligencer ran with the story back in May – I’m not a subscriber, and I can’t find the link, but you can check that if you’re so inclined.

The only think pathological is your denial of reality while you create, in your own mind, a picture of evil and incompetence that you label “Team Bush.” You really should try to think beyond the latest DNC email.

Are you trying to say that there was a lot less of the explosives than the IAEA reported? Your writing is opaque.

I don’t think you should be calling anyone dim bulb in general, but your on especially thin ground levelling that charge on this thread.

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
The explosives were conventional weapons, not WMD. [/quote]

So are you saying it is unimportant?

Yup, he should be guarding things that are not even there. Why the hell isn?t that Bush putting more people out there to guard invisible weapons.

Who?

Wow, you really are blinded by your hate. Why would he suppress stuff that didn?t happen? We are destroying 400,000 tons of explosives, and people are upset about 380 that don?t even exist. If this wasn?t an October surprise, then why didn?t it come out sooner? People supposedly knew about this sooner. The only reason is because is was bogus, and it was hoped that the true story would not come out until after the election, then it would be too late.

Yup that damn team Bush cannot admit that they made the mistake of saying that there were 380 tons of explosives that were not even there… wait, that was the Kerry camp who jumped on an ad about this before they even knew anything. The fact that you cannot admit this is wrong shows that you are pathological.

So you are finally admitting that the story is not even correct? You are saying that the story is wrong, and there were maybe 100 tons, but still believe Bush is responsible for 380 tons? Sounds pathological to me.

Yup, I am a dim bulb. You are incapable of an intelligent argument without somebody doing your thinking for you. Repeatedly I have gone to your brainwashing website and found your exact arguments from their anti-America posts and links. (Note to everybody, I said the site, and I said anti, not un.)

Also you always disappear, and never answer any questions when you start losing an argument. You are just a post terrorist. Hit and run because you cannot take the heat.

Talk about a pathological dim bulb.