RateItAll: The Opinion Network

Nobody seems to care.

Damaging to W's reelection? Maybe. The HMX and RDX explosives can be used to detonate nuclear bombs and could be safely described as WMD's. Especially 380 tons of it. Only the Liberals (I have to be careful not to say Democrats because there are still some who support Bush) are crying incredible incompetence on Bush's part. I find greater incompetence among the Liberals. For the past year you've said Bush lied. There are no WMD's or any evidence that they existed in Iraq! Now you say he's incompetent because 380 tons of explosives are missing? How can they be missing if they never existed? So what you're saying is Bush DIDN'T lie! UPDATE: I just changed my rating from 3 to 1. As people learn what NBC is reporting then they will see how this story is just a last minute attempt to smear Bush before the election and of course Kerry would come out screaming How could the president be so careless and incompetent? We want answers! According to NBC this is an old story, about as old as the invasion. When the US troops searched the Millitary base where they were kept right after the fall of Baghdad they weren't there which means the people loyal to Saddam moved it somewhere else. UPDATE: Now Fox news is reporting that a US team removed the explosives after the fall of Baghdad according to a soldier. The fact is nobody knows what was and what wasn't there and when. This just shows how big of a joke the New York Times and John Kerry are.

This non-news news was only an event because The Old Gray Lady with her fully emblazoned Kerry Pin- jumped the gun on forgerific 60 minutes (totally unbiased in its attempts to effect the election of course) and John Kerry are shamelessly grasping at anything to win the office of the American Presidency. If John Kerry would have had his way Saddam would STILL HAVE THESE WEAPONS AND WOULD STILL BE IN POWER! These weapons that he now claims are such a threat he would also have allowed Saddam to still possess. He would have TRUSTED Saddam not to pass them on the Al Queda or Hezbollah or Hamas, or Islamic Jihad even though Saddam had ties to everyone of them. The story is much to do about nothing. Two embedded reporters claim there were no weapons at the location in April of 2003 and also claim that after the military locked the area down it would have been impossible for that much material to be removed from any area without being spotted. The reality is this is going to HELP George Bush because it proves his point. Saddam was dangerous with CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS regardless of whether he had WMD. And therefore it was the right course of action to remove him from power in the context of the war on terror.

If the explosives disappeared under our watch, it's a huge, sloppy blunder. If the explosives disappeared before we got there, the whole thing is getting blown out of proportion. I am puzzled by how the Bush Administration has admitted not knowing if the weapons were there or not when our forces got there. You'd think we'd be on top of that stuff.

There has been no factual evidence presented on this matter!!!Not from the networks and not from Hanoi John!There is no way to determine EXACTLY when and if and how this may have occurred!It could have been before we even took Baghdad!Typical desperation from Kerry!Trying to scare up votes!Lies to old people, telling them they will lose social Security and Healthcare,Lies to young people, telling them they will be drafted!It is a disgrace!

Response for Eschew: I respect your right to draw different conclusions than my own regarding who would make the most effective president. I agree with you on your point that dishonest smear campaigns often arise in politics, though my own view is that no side has been more honorable than the other. As an example, the Swift Boat example you mentioned on this topic. George Bush has said himself than John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam, which impartial sources tend to support. Regardless, you raise an excellent point that the media is more likely to mention bad news in Iraq than good news. I share your concern that the public receives information that is fair and free of distortion, and I've been looking for objective sources to determine whether the missing 377 tons of explosives is a legitimate issue or not. GoneAway said it best: Lets' wait for all the facts please.

UPDATE to mag & Andrew: Now that reasonable suspicion (see Flick, Jaws & PBeav comments, this list) has been raised and the timing of the story has been brought under scrutiny, something even partisans should be responsible enough to do this close to an election, particularly given the irresponsible track record of the NY Times (see Lawrence Walsh - 1992; Bush DWI story 11/2000) whose partisan timing can be equated to a liberal smear campaign with impeccable timing, I hope everyone sees the folly of jumping to the Bush is incompetent panic button again. If you wish to conclude that I'm not very genuine, or a very cold person, I guess I'd refer you to almost 850 posted comments and encourage you to draw that judgement based on more than one post, or don't, as you see fit. I have a great deal at stake in this war, Andrew, as do many other Americans, which is exactly why I believe it so imperative to keep an imposter like Kerry out of any decision-making capacity, since he has not shown the type of judgement or truthfulness the country needs for the next four years. Don't even get me started on his previous seditious and treasonous behavior, or his incredibly liberal voting record, his hostility to weapons bills or his desire to fight with spitballs. He, of course, wasted no time in jumping to his own irresponsible conclusions, raising even more doubt about his fitness for command, as if a reasonable person would need more data in that regard. Andrew: How can those bothered by the war not want positive news? Find a positive article about Afghanistan or Iraq, in any newspaper, on any wire service in the US for the past two months. Start looking now, it's gonna take some time. Has nothing positive happened, in either theater? Finally, the incredible conclusion that Kerry would somehow show better leadership or smarter conduct of the war is the silliest contention of all. He has shown nothing resembling leadership, merely conducting his own relentless smear campaign, with a loooonnnggg list of his complaints (some valid, some ridiculous) against the current administration (to the enormous pleasure of his anti-war base), insulting the allies he wants desperately to have responsiblity to negotiate with, overstating the importance of France and Germany, offering no details of plans he has developed, showing no will (or ability) to fight terrorism (preferring to treat them as a nuisance) indicated no greater competence but ready to re-instate the administration which did not even consider islamofascists a nuisance. But he'd be better than Bush? Whew. Now go vote for the guy who will keep us all safer. ORIGINAL COMMENT (10/26/04): Partisans will see it and use it as a campaign issue, objective thinkers will see it as an indication that our soldiers are in harm's way in a very dangerous region of the world. If this is a campaign issue for you: 1). You are voting for Kerry, and always have been. 2). You have never voted for a republican in any election (except for magellan, whom I know has voted for one) and 3). You welcome the press' negative coverage of the Iraq War, in the complete absence of any, ANY positive stories about either conflict going on now.

An important story, but I don't think the campaign rhetoric has really changed many minds with respect to Iraq. You're going to have partisans for the President go all out to say that the Iraq War was justifiable from a strategic vantage-point. The question of this being proof positive that Saddam did indeed have WMD are a stretch--was it still justified to invade a country that held a few explosives? Many liberals say that Bush lied about the WMD, claiming that Saddam didn't have anything, but the question still is 1. did it pose enough of a threat to overthrow a regime and 2. can such an invasion create even larger problems in the region, such as insurgencies or regional disbalances of power and 3. will this assist in our larger war on terrorism. On one and three, the answer is no and on two it's yes.***As for the explosives themselves, no doubt some are bound to end up in the hands of the insurgency that we have to contend with, thus making the security situation there even more tenuous. Shows that we didn't have a comprehensive plan to secure that country from the onset, which should have been a prerequisite of any occupation. We dived head first into a fiasco and are still trying to get our bearings. Talk about hubris! It's also kind of ironic that one of the reasons why we entered Iraq in the first place was to disarm that regime, yet we failed utterly in locating and securing major caches of weapons. Certainly something to think about with regard to our intent in the region.

This was supposed to be an October surprise and the only thing that has exploded has been this plan. The facts are coming to light that this is an out and out lie and once again, at least two networks and the New York Times have their filthy hands involved elbow deep in deception. The munitions were removed before we ever got there and that's the fact. Why is it that these liberals are willing to believe that 380 tons of explosives disappeared but they can't even fathom the thought that perhaps the same thing may have happned to WMDs? Their lies are coming back to haunt them and these news outlets are being seen for the leftist, prejudiced, biased stooges for the Democratic party that they have always been.