October 25, 2004

Was Kerry at Game 6 in 1986? (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/10/25/was_kerry_at_game_6_in_1986.html)

According to an ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=questions/johnkerry) interview, Sen. John Kerry claimed to be just "30 yards away" from Bill Buckner's infamous error in game 6 of the 1986 World Series. That fateful game was held at Shea Stadium in New York on October 25, 1986 (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/baseballs_best/mlb_bb_gamepage.jsp?story_page=bb_86ws_gm6_bosnym) .



However, thanks to a sleuthing Political Wire reader, a Boston Globe article (from the archive (http://www.boston.com/globe/search/)) says Kerry was in Boston that night at a banquet:N.M. GOVERNOR DETAILS HIS STATE'S SUCCESS STORY

Published on October 26, 1986
Author(s): Peter J. Howe, Globe Staff

New Mexico's governor, who holds the highest elected post of any Hispanic nationwide, and the head of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination were given awards for political excellence last night by the Massachusetts Latino Democratic Committee.

More than 250 people -- including Gov. Dukakis, US Sen. John Kerry and an array of state Cabinet members -- attended the banquet at the World Trade Center in South Boston honoring Gov. Toney Anaya and Alex Rodriguez.
Kerry makes the same claim in a USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-11-23-kerry-cover_x.htm) piece: "I was about 30 yards away from Billy Buckner when that ball wiggled away. I had cracked a bottle of champagne, was jumping up and down — prematurely."


Not the biggest issue in the world, but if Kerry was there I seriously doubt they had bottles of champagne in the stands behind the Mets dugout.

Update: The Kerry campaign issued a response to The Hotline's Last Call after they ran the story: "He attended an event in the early evening in Boston and then hopped the shuttle and got to Shea midway through the game."

Yeah right! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the spinmeisters are really reaching, aren't they? Trying to tie the World Series in even. Pathetic.

Sounds like you're getting desperate. How can you prove Kerry didn't catch the second half of the game at Shea that night? No concern about Bush's serial lies to the American people about Iraq, or their mismanagement of just about every aspect of our foreign and domestic policies, or their latest blunder in losing hundreds of tons of explosives in Iraq, but somehow this alleged lie is critical. LAME.

The explosives issue is a red herring. They were lost before any American stepped in the country. For all we know they have been detonated or shipped to Syria with the rest of the WMD. The story in the times is bogus. Most tractor trailors can carry the whole lot in one load. It wouldn't take 40 trucks as they suggested. The IAEA said they marked the bunkers. Well some of those bunkers were destroyed in the initial air attacks. Ignorant people would suggest that these munitions just went missing. They were last known to exist about 18 months ago. No one has seen them since. The site was inspected by our military and noted that any IAEA marked bunkers are secure.

October 25, 2004

Was Kerry at Game 6 in 1986? (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/10/25/was_kerry_at_game_6_in_1986.html)

According to an ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=questions/johnkerry) interview, Sen. John Kerry claimed to be just "30 yards away" from Bill Buckner's infamous error in game 6 of the 1986 World Series. That fateful game was held at Shea Stadium in New York on October 25, 1986 (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/baseballs_best/mlb_bb_gamepage.jsp?story_page=bb_86ws_gm6_bosnym) .



However, thanks to a sleuthing Political Wire reader, a Boston Globe article (from the archive (http://www.boston.com/globe/search/)) says Kerry was in Boston that night at a banquet:N.M. GOVERNOR DETAILS HIS STATE'S SUCCESS STORY

Published on October 26, 1986
Author(s): Peter J. Howe, Globe Staff

New Mexico's governor, who holds the highest elected post of any Hispanic nationwide, and the head of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination were given awards for political excellence last night by the Massachusetts Latino Democratic Committee.

More than 250 people -- including Gov. Dukakis, US Sen. John Kerry and an array of state Cabinet members -- attended the banquet at the World Trade Center in South Boston honoring Gov. Toney Anaya and Alex Rodriguez.
Kerry makes the same claim in a USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-11-23-kerry-cover_x.htm) piece: "I was about 30 yards away from Billy Buckner when that ball wiggled away. I had cracked a bottle of champagne, was jumping up and down — prematurely."


Not the biggest issue in the world, but if Kerry was there I seriously doubt they had bottles of champagne in the stands behind the Mets dugout.

Update: The Kerry campaign issued a response to The Hotline's Last Call after they ran the story: "He attended an event in the early evening in Boston and then hopped the shuttle and got to Shea midway through the game."

Yeah right! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Straws as in grasping for... What the **** are the Republicans so worried about whether or not John Kerry was the Shea in 1986? I'm betting that he was. But then again, who really cares?

Straws as in grasping for... What the **** are the Republicans so worried about whether or not John Kerry was the Shea in 1986? I'm betting that he was. But then again, who really cares?
I heard Kerry lied when Teresa asked him if she looked fat in these jeans. How can we support such a man!!!!!

Steam, do you honestly think anyone gives a **** about where Kerry was in 1986?

Honestly? Do you think it's important in any way?

Be honest.

No. However it does say something about his character, when he feels it's necessary to lie about such trivial things. Oh, Clinton did the same :p

26,000 pounds is average for a normal size Semi. That's only 520 tons. Didn't george loose 850 tons?

The Army won the war......Bush lost the peace............Thanks george.

From San Diego Union Tribune

Poll: Bush backers unswayed on WMD


By Frank Davies


October 22, 2004

WASHINGTON – Nearly 75 percent of President Bush's supporters continue to believe that Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction or a major program to develop them, contrary to official findings, a survey taken this month found.

And three out of four Bush backers believe Saddam Hussein provided substantial support to al-Qaeda or was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, while 56 percent said the Sept. 11 Commission found such ties.

In reality, the commission found "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

The survey by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, released yesterday, shows that the supporters of Bush and Sen. John Kerry have stark differences and see "separate realities" about Iraq and other foreign policy issues.

The poll, conducted by Knowledge Networks, was taken of 968 people during Oct. 12-18, after the final report by Charles Duelfer concluded that Iraq did not have a significant program for weapons of mass destruction. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.2 to 4 percentage points.

Steven Kull, program director, said Bush supporters' "resistance to information" on several fronts reflected a powerful bond with the president formed after the Sept. 11 attacks, and the perception – shared by Kerry supporters – that Bush still asserts that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

In recent months, Bush has said he was "disappointed" that such weapons were not found, that the search continued and that it was important to "disarm" Hussein.

There might be another reason, Kull said. Asked whether U.S. forces should have invaded Iraq if U.S. intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making weapons of mass destruction or providing support to al-Qaeda, 58 percent of Bush supporters said no.

"To support the president and to accept that he took the United States to war based on mistaken assumptions is difficult to bear, especially in light of the continuing costs in terms of lives and money," Kull said.

"Apparently, to avoid this cognitive dissonance, Bush supporters suppress awareness of unsettling information," he said.

A spokesman for the Bush campaign, Reed Dickens, said the perceptions on weapons were understandable "given that it's only in the last few weeks we've had this definitive finding" of the Duelfer report.

The survey also found that Bush supporters have "numerous misperceptions" about the president's positions. Majorities incorrectly believe that Bush backs the Kyoto global-warming treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the International Criminal Court and the treaty banning land mines.

A majority of Bush backers surveyed (57 percent) also believe most people in the world favor Bush's re-election, contrary to the findings of several polls.

Kerry supporters have a more accurate perception of their candidate's positions, the survey found, and the gulf between Kerry and Bush supporters is large.

While 85 percent of Bush backers think the United States made the right decision to go to war against Iraq, only 8 percent of Kerry backers agree.

If Bush had known about the lack of weapons of mass destruction and substantial ties to al-Qaeda, 83 percent of Kerry supporters say, Bush would have gone to war for other reasons. Only 34 percent of Bush backers agree.

Has Kerry ever made jokes about someone who he condemned to death ?????????

Speaking about character....................................

The explosives issue is a red herring.

You really are living in alternate universe aren't you? This facility was under US military control.

No. However it does say something about his character, when he feels it's necessary to lie about such trivial things. Oh, Clinton did the same :p

Doesn't it say something about YOUR character when you bother to call him on such trivial things? Most people would just say "blowhard!" and move on to something important.

No. However it does say something about his character, when he feels it's necessary to lie about such trivial things. Oh, Clinton did the same :p

Even with Clinton, I feel more comfortable about the President of the US lying about getting a BJ in the Oval Office than say about a certain country's posession of weapons of mass destruction and or their ties to certain terrorist groups. Which one is more dangerous? I'd say the latter. Take just about any red blooded man in this country, have them commit some daliance against their wife, and more than likely, initially, they're going to lie about it. Clinton's problem is that he did it under oath. Oops, can you say perjury? I am saying that just about any one of us here would do the same thing in that same situation. Now leading the country to believe that Iraq was "coming to get us", that's a little more dangerous than getting a hummer in the Oval Office. I'll take lying about sex and baseball games over lying about serious foreign policy flaws any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. Aside from that, all politicians lie anyway. Bush does it. Kerry does it. Cheney most certainly does it. Edwards does it. They all freakin' do it. Agree or disagree?

watch any episode of "Cheaters". Not just men, gals too! " Uh, we have you on video" "wasn't me!" "uh we have you on audio and video tape, multiple times" "Wasn't Me!"
When Clinton lied, nobody died.

OK blowhard! Move on :p

watch any episode of "Cheaters". Not just men, gals too! " Uh, we have you on video" "wasn't me!" "uh we have you on audio and video tape, multiple times" "Wasn't Me!"
When Clinton lied, nobody died.

It was also kind of funny that from the time Clinton took office, until he ran out his second term, there was a serious Republican front trying to get him out of office from day 1. It says something to me that all of this money and time was spent trying to oust him from office, and the best thing that they could come up with was him lying about getting a BJ from Monica. That also tells me that all of the stories and fables made up about Clinton were just that. Made up. But since the media covered most of those "stories" as facts, there are still a lot of people out there that believe Clinton did a lot of bad things. Which, he didn't. If the people and resources that were used to try to get Clinton out of office, were used to the betterment of the country, I think we'd be in a much better position that where we are now. Lots of waste right there.

was painful. like you said 'it was the best they could do with their witch hunt" didn't it start with Whitewater? could you imagine what we'd find if we spent equal time and money investigating our current admins involvement w/ Halib. and Iraq contracts, their relationship
to the CA energy rip-off or W's dumping of his Oil companies stock right before they went belly up?

Republicans hate Clinton because he beat them. Sore losers.

even when their team CHEATED

I hear Bush was in Hershey the night Wilt scored a hundred ... :cool:

The explosives issue is a red herring. They were lost before any American stepped in the country. For all we know they have been detonated or shipped to Syria with the rest of the WMD. The story in the times is bogus. Most tractor trailors can carry the whole lot in one load. It wouldn't take 40 trucks as they suggested. The IAEA said they marked the bunkers. Well some of those bunkers were destroyed in the initial air attacks. Ignorant people would suggest that these munitions just went missing. They were last known to exist about 18 months ago. No one has seen them since. The site was inspected by our military and noted that any IAEA marked bunkers are secure.

i call bullshit

At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said US-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1098677410357 (http://)

one single tractor trailer can haul 350 tons? jeezus steam, you've lost it.

26,000 pounds is average for a normal size Semi. That's only 520 tons. Didn't george loose 850 tons?

The Army won the war......Bush lost the peace............Thanks george.

umm, 26,000 pounds is 13 tons. that's almost 30 tractor trailer loads.

of course, steam thinks tractor trailers can haul 360-380 tons at a shot.

Steam is a regular guy. He's a Real Man who knows about trucks 'n stuff.

Sorry, you are wrong on the facts. It is now under US control. It wasn't at the start of the war when they likely disappeared.

it's not under US control. it's not under anyone's control, cause basically by now, it's been completely ransacked of whatever was there. even your president's own mouthpiece said today that responsibility for securing ammo bunkers now is the iraqi governments. you know, that whole "transfer of sovereignty" thing.

i think it's you that's wrong on the facts.

again, i give you:
At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said US-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.

umm, 26,000 pounds is 13 tons. that's almost 30 tractor trailer loads.

of course, steam thinks tractor trailers can haul 360-380 tons at a shot.

The average TT weighs 27,000 pounds empty. Long haul payloads run 53,000 to 73,000 depending on conditions, equipment, distance and states being crossed. Not unusual to see plywood trucks leave GP in Maine topping 50 tons or gravel trucks in the 120 tons area. Not quite 360 tons, but formidable.

The average TT weighs 27,000 pounds empty. Long haul payloads run 53,000 to 73,000 depending on conditions, equipment, distance and states being crossed. Not unusual to see plywood trucks leave GP in Maine topping 50 tons or gravel trucks in the 120 tons area. Not quite 360 tons, but formidable.
Are those numbers universal? I would expect (but have no clue) that transporting HE would be a lot more dicey -- not like plywood or gravel.

and just to make the point clear:

did you even read the article? (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html?ei=5094&en=61cf6e1aa29b7871&hp=&ex=1098676800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all&position=)
Earlier this month, in a letter to the I.A.E.A. in Vienna, a senior official from Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology wrote that the stockpile disappeared after early April 2003 because of "the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security."
the Iraqi government, you know, the one we put in power? after april 2003, you know, after we invaded?


The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year.
no man's land. after the US led invasion, acknowledged by white house and pentagon officials



Dr. Omar said that after the American-led invasion, the sites containing the explosives were under the control of the Coalition Provisional Authority, an American-led entity that was the highest civilian authority in Iraq until it handed sovereignty of the country over to the interim government on June 28.

"After the collapse of the regime, our liberation, everything was under the coalition forces, under their control," Dr. Omar said. "So probably they can answer this question, what happened to the materials."
under US control until the handover of sovereignty.


Officials in Washington said they had no answers to that question. One senior official noted that the Qaqaa complex where the explosives were stored was listed as a "medium priority" site on the Central Intelligence Agency's list of more than 500 sites that needed to be searched and secured during the invasion. "Should we have gone there? Definitely," said one senior administration official.

In the chaos that followed the invasion, however, many of those sites, even some considered a higher priority, were never secured.
oops.


Today, Al Qaqaa has become a wasteland generally avoided even by the marines in charge of northern Babil Province. Headless bodies are found there. An ammunition dump has been looted, and on Sunday an Iraqi employee of The New York Times who made a furtive visit to the site saw looters tearing out metal fixtures. Bare pipes within the darkened interior of one of the buildings were a tangled mess, zigzagging along charred walls. Someone fired a shot, probably to frighten the visitors off.

"It's like Mars on Earth," said Maj. Dan Whisnant, an intelligence officer for the Second Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment. "It would take probably 10 battalions 10 years to clear that out."
doesn't sound like it's under much of anyone's control to me. marines "avoid" it.


But the Bush administration would not allow the agency back into the country to verify the status of the stockpile. In May 2004, Iraqi officials say in interviews, they warned L. Paul Bremer III, the American head of the occupation authority, that Al Qaqaa had probably been looted. It is unclear if that warning was passed anywhere. Efforts to reach Mr. Bremer by telephone were unsuccessful

five months ago we were told of this. why's it only coming out now? who tried to keep this info under wraps?

hey, but you just keep on listening to the excuses coming from the administration. "you could get that stuff anywhere, it's no big deal" "it was probably gone before we even got there". "it doesn't matter, cause we destroyed a bunch of other stuff". "hey, the iraqi's are responsible for safeguarding that stuff".

the bush administration: it's never our fault.

Are those numbers universal? I would expect (but have no clue) that transporting HE would be a lot more dicey -- not like plywood or gravel.
Terrorists have very loose Haz-Mat rules. Anyone stealing explosives has already thrown caution to the wind. It only takes a few pounds to blow the truck no sense in not loading it to capacity.

Terrorists have very loose Haz-Mat rules. Anyone stealing explosives has already thrown caution to the wind. It only takes a few pounds to blow the truck no sense in not loading it to capacity.
See now, I would think that they would want to be as cautious as possible so they don't waste the bombs and so that they don't look like complete idiots by blowing themselves right into Allah's waiting arms.

No biggie -- how they got them out isn't nearly as important as the fact that they got them out in the first place.

and just to make the point clear:

did you even read the article? (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html?ei=5094&en=61cf6e1aa29b7871&hp=&ex=1098676800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all&position=)

the Iraqi government, you know, the one we put in power? after april 2003, you know, after we invaded?



no man's land. after the US led invasion, acknowledged by white house and pentagon officials








under US control until the handover of sovereignty.



oops.



doesn't sound like it's under much of anyone's control to me. marines "avoid" it.




five months ago we were told of this. why's it only coming out now? who tried to keep this info under wraps?

hey, but you just keep on listening to the excuses coming from the administration. "you could get that stuff anywhere, it's no big deal" "it was probably gone before we even got there". "it doesn't matter, cause we destroyed a bunch of other stuff". "hey, the iraqi's are responsible for safeguarding that stuff".

the bush administration: it's never our fault.


STEAM's rule number one

1) In the face of overwhelming evidence, even evidence given by your own administration...Deny.
2) If denial does not work and someone itemizes said evidence supporting it with his sides own claims and the government that they support... Abandon the thread as if it never existed...Even if he started the thread in the first place.

I hear Bush was in Hershey the night Wilt scored a hundred ... :cool:

Nah, Bush was probably taking another vaction in Crawford Texas the night Wilt scored a hundred. I mean he's there every other day anyway. Why would it be any different then?

OK blowhard! Move on :p

Is there none more jolly than you? Enough with the smileycons. Jeezuz what a chucklehead.

STEAM's rule number one

1) In the face of overwhelming evidence, even evidence given by your own administration...Deny.
2) If denial does not work and someone itemizes said evidence supporting it with his sides own claims and the government that they support... Abandon the thread as if it never existed...Even if he started the thread in the first place.

yes, i've long ago noticed that this is steam's modus operandi when challenged to back up a statement with proof, or when a statement of his is rebutted with unimpeachable evidence to the contrary, he simply disappears from that thread, only to start up another one over some inane topic like, "john kerry said he had wheaties for breakfast, when on video he's shown eating cheerios. how can we trust him to ever tell the truth?"

you notice on the other thread, where he said he's never seen kerry address a crowd of more than a few hundred people, and then i posted a couple pictures that show tens of thousands of people at his events, steam just slunk away into the mists of the internets.

It is estimated that Iraq had more than 2 million tons of munitions stored in cashes throughout the country. 380 tons represent just 0.019% of the estimated amount of explosives and munitions that confronted the US at the beginning of the invasion. So if the explosives are indeed missing, which is still up for debate, as some if not all of it may have been destroyed in bombing raids, it is but a relatively small amount.

Understand also there were logistical problems that hurt our efforts during and immediately after we entered Baghdad. Specifically Turkey refused to allow the 4th Infantry to enter Iraq from the North via Turkey. That severely hindered our plans and allowed the criminal element to move North into Saddam friendly territory without fear of coalition forces coming from the North. This was a major hitch in our plans.

So you can go right ahead in believing that JFK has all the answers rather than being the World's most famous Monday Morning Quarterback. After all he said if elected people will get up from their wheelchairs and cancer will be cured. He probably can walk on water too.

It is estimated that Iraq had more than 2 million tons of munitions stored in cashes throughout the country. 380 tons represent just 0.019% of the estimated amount of explosives and munitions that confronted the US at the beginning of the invasion. So if the explosives are indeed missing, which is still up for debate, as some if not all of it may have been destroyed in bombing raids, it is but a relatively small amount.

Understand also there were logistical problems that hurt our efforts during and immediately after we entered Baghdad. Specifically Turkey refused to allow the 4th Infantry to enter Iraq from the North via Turkey. That severely hindered our plans and allowed the criminal element to move North into Saddam friendly territory without fear of coalition forces coming from the North. This was a major hitch in our plans.

So you can go right ahead in believing that JFK has all the answers rather than being the World's most famous Monday Morning Quarterback. After all he said if elected people will get up from their wheelchairs and cancer will be cured. He probably can walk on water too.

As far as I know, or anyone else for that matter, Northern Iraq is the homeland of the Kurds, who are anything but Saddam friendly. Missing explosives... More than likely, but I don't think that's anything out of the ordinary considering what's going on in Iraq. Most of the country was looted when the US "liberated" it, why would missing explosives be any different?

but obviously these high explosives are more dangerous, and have more potential killing power than a cache of old weapons from the iran-iraq war or a bunch of ak-47's. it's not just the amount, it's the magnitude. a ton of nuclear material is far more dangerous, and a higher priority than 2000 tons of gun ammunition. furthermore, the IAEA had warned the administration both before the war, and during the early months, that this was a dangerous area, and needed to be secured. in addition, al qaqaa is one of the largest military/weapons complexes in iraq, it's far more than just a cache site. it's an area where missiles were built.

if what you're saying is a parrot of another of the administration's excuses, that they just couldn't secure every weapons cache in iraq, then you're just simply saying that they went into the task without sufficent resources to get the job done correctly. and because of their incompetence, despite being told that these things needed to be done, a lot of our troops there have died from attacks using these explosives. by stating that turkey wouldn't allow troops to use their landspace, it simply illustrates the failure of the coalition-building process, and the strategic planning(what planning?) for this war, and the lack of foresight of this administration for not knowing that turkey wouldn't allow troops.

face it steam, your boy is a hollow man. full of big talk, but no substance. talks a big game, but doesn't achieve results. all hat and no cattle. but you've bought the image.

NBC is reporting that these explosives may have been already missing. We now have the dreaded conflicting reports from different news sources. Here is the link from CNN.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.explosives/index.html

It is estimated that Iraq had more than 2 million tons of munitions stored in cashes throughout the country. 380 tons represent just 0.019% of the estimated amount of explosives and munitions that confronted the US at the beginning of the invasion. So if the explosives are indeed missing, which is still up for debate, as some if not all of it may have been destroyed in bombing raids, it is but a relatively small amount.

Let's apply your logic to airflights, shall we?

There are something like 30 million commercial flights a year world wide, which is close to 600,000 per week.

http://www.demarcken.org/carl/papers/ITA-software-travel-complexity/text4.html

Let's say the US has 10% of them (a conservative estimate), which makes for 60k flights a week. Heck, I saw an estimate of 50k a DAY on another site I can't recall right now, so let's go with that.

4/50,000=.00008 = .008% of US flights on 9-11 were involved in terrorism, which is a TINY percentage. By you logic, we should not be worried about it, because it is such a TINY percentage! Even if it is only per week, that is still a tiny percentage of .035%

Get your head out, steam. This stuff is both VERY powerful and VERY stable and VERY shapable. It won't go boom by mistake. Artilery shells can be modified, but that is dangerous, while this high yeild explosive is DESIGNED for demolition. You can literally take a knife and carve a chunk off of whatever size you need. It's safe and needs a blasting cap to go off. One pound of the stuff has been used to bring down an airliner in the past. That's pound, and we are talking tons.

Did the administration plan for dealing with the munitions? No. Why not? Isn't that an obvious thing to do? The bushies disbanded the army (presumably because it was a danger) but then DID NOT SECURE THE ARMS! Excuse me? How is that not a major fark up? How is that not a contradiction in approach (army dangerous, bombs not)?

One more incompetent action in a long list.

saw an estimate that this amount of explosives could account for anywhere between 2500-8000 oklahoma city bombings. is that what we want happening in iraq, or god forbid here, if terrorists should use that stuff in a future attack here?

That's what I said yesterday. The stuff was already missing. It could have been destroyed in bombing raids as some bunkers were hit or it was already removed by someone. Is NBC enough of an independant source for most of you? I don't believe they shill for Bush in any way. You people love to 'rush to judgement'! LOL!!!

You people love to 'rush to judgement'! LOL!!!

It's our president who "rushes to judgement." And by the way he's major f@ck up!