"Liberal logic" - well there's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one. If they used logic, there wouldn't be any left. It's a self defeating proposition.

Watching Republicans get their facts wrong... Now that's fun to watch.

You (selectively?) forgot to mention that the explosives in question were declared to the IAEA, who kept guard over them until the first bombs fell in March 2003.

Or, in other words, Saddam couldn't touch them.

Yeah, because the UN is =so= scary.

...and has never been paid off by Saddam.

Tell me another one...

Whatever. Judging solely from the fact that the US attacked Iraq and Saddam didn't use these explosives should serve as proof that he didn't have access to them. Otherwise, why let the weapons sit there while 140,000 US soldiers are attacking you? Doesn't make too much sense, does it?

Only a Lib believes the UN scares anyone. And only a Lib like Kerry continues to make this an issue in the election. What angers me is Kerry's statements about the missing explosives which make the military look bad. But then again that's been Kerry's MO since 1971. Why should that traitor change now?

BTW, I love reading and hearing Libs talk about war scenarios. Most of those clowns don't even know which end of a gun bullets come out. But they suddenly become military experts. It boggles the mind how dimwitted the left is.

There are lots of things wrong with this explosives story, but I don't think this is one of them.

All we're talking about here is a bunch of explosives -- and not particularly exotic explosives, at that. We're not talking about WMDs. The Left never said that this sort of stuff didn't exist. Likewise, no one, on either side of the issue, would have ever argued that stuff like this justified the war. Iraq wasn't prohibited from having these explosives.

The bigger problems with the story are that this stuff is a drop in the bucket compared to the explosives that we've collected over there, and that there's no evidence that the explosives were still there once we invaded.

Judging solely from the fact that the U.S. attacked Saddam and he didn't use his "army" proves that he didn't have access to them. (Or was not in charge, and therefore cannot be held accountable)Otherwise, why let them sit there while 140,000 U.S. soldiers are attacking you? Doesn't make too much sense, does it?

Liberal logic, indeed.

...and that is why people come here for the witty banter and the in depth discussions that barely rise above the “oh yeah, sez you” level.

I was just surprised to see Paul use the words "President" and "pretzel" in the same posting. Nothing like tempting fate.

"declared to the IAEA, who kept guard over them "

Talk about getting fact wrong!!!

Thats plain nutz.

"Judging solely from the fact that the US attacked Iraq and Saddam didn't use these explosives should serve as proof that he didn't have access to them."

OOOOH So those mountains and mountains and mountains of explosives we found in churches, hospitals and elementary schools really didn't exist. Saddam used every explosive he had. That's it... We didn't overrun the country so fast they hardly fired a shot- Nope- They just ran out of ammo.

Watch it or you'll give me enough material for another post.

Spoons-
Do you wake up every morning and think "How can I miss Paul's point today?"

Rick
Your Momma

Floyd
That was funny.

Have a good day everyone.

You (selectively?) forgot to mention that the explosives in question were declared to the IAEA, who kept guard over them until the first bombs fell in March 2003.

Uh, the U.N. put a sticker on them and left. (Saddam kicked them out) They came back in 2002 and found that 34 tons were missing. Apparently the sticker didn't do that good of a job, but confident that the sticker would work a second time around, they left yet again.

Whatever.

Oooooooh! Great comeback, Tas!

Spoons-
Do you wake up every morning and think "How can I miss Paul's point today?"

Pretty much. Right after I say, how can I piss off INDC Bill today. :-)

I guess I still don't see your point, but that's okay. We agree that the story is bogus, even if it's for different reasons.

I'd like to table the idea that the IAEA information might NOT be so accurate. Regardless, of their obvious bias, their track record in itself, isn't exactly exemplary. This couldn't possibly be a setup, (smile), could it?

And, I can't help but wonder, how many "Oil for Food credits" it would cost for one to say that the seals on the "missing" explosives were still intact.

I'm just flabbergasted by the attention this is getting.

1) As pointed out by many others previously, 380 tons of explosives isn't even a drop in the bucket.

2) Speeches and articles blaming Bush for losing them are pretty silly. Was he supposed to jet over there personally and guard them himself? Unless CBS finds a memo from someone about how Bush ignored suggestions to guard THAT 380 tons of explosives...

3) The US had previously asked the UN to destroy this stuff. They didn't as it wasn't perceived to be a threat worth destroying. They also appeared unconcerned when some was missing when they returned later.

3a) Is this stuff that bad or isn't it that bad? Nothing threatening in Iraq, but HOW DARE BUSH LOSE IT?

3b) UN involvement in determining threats and the response to such casts doubt on the entire operation to begin with.

This initially struck me as similar to complaints that the US military didn't do enough to stop all the looting after the fall of Saddam's regime. Sure, it would have been nice, but they were all a bit busy. There was a war and all, you know.

Still, HOW DARE THEY LOSE THOSE 17,000 MUSEUM PIECES?!?

You really need to check out this link....It is the best illustration of Kerry's flip/flops I have see to date.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/101104v1-1.wmv