U.N.: Explosives Missing from Former Iraq Atomic SiteMon Oct 25, 2004
By Louis Charbonneau
VIENNA (Reuters) - Nearly 380 tons of explosives are missing from a site near Baghdad that was part of Saddam Hussein's dismantled atom bomb program but was never secured by the U.S. military, the United Nations said Monday.
The head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, will immediately report the matter to the U.N. Security Council, a spokeswoman for the agency said.
The missing explosives could potentially be used to detonate a nuclear weapon or in conventional weapons, the agency said.
…
U.S. FAILED TO SECURE KNOWN NUCLEAR SITE
The New York Times report cited White House and Pentagon officials -- as well as at least one Iraqi minister -- as acknowledging that the explosives vanished from the site shortly after the U.S.-led invasion amid widespread looting.
The minister of science and technology, Rashad M. Omar, confirmed the explosives were missing in an interview with The Times and CBS Television in Baghdad.
A Western diplomat close to the IAEA, who declined to be named, said it was difficult to understand why the U.S. military had failed to secure the facility despite knowing how sensitive the site was.
"This was a very well known site. If you could have picked a few sites that you would have to secure then ... Al Qaqaa would certainly be one of the main ones," the diplomat said.
U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was informed about the missing explosives only within the last month, the Times said, adding that it was unclear whether President Bush was aware.
U.S. administration officials said Sunday the Iraq Survey Group, the Central Intelligence Agency task force that searched for unconventional weapons, had been ordered to investigate the disappearance, the newspaper said.
Vienna diplomats said the IAEA had cautioned the United States about the danger of the explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told U.S. officials about the need to keep the them secured.
If you weren't already familiar with the machinations of this administration, you might innocently inquire "why did we secure the oil ministry, but not secure known weapons facilities, when our primary reason for going to war was the fear that weapons [of mass destruction] would fall into the hands of terrorists?" Were we more concerned that the terrorists might get their hands on our precious crack oil? But I'm not going to ask that question here, because, in the great words of Perry Farrell: "Nothing's shocking." I love how it says "it was unclear whether President Bush was aware..." I don't know what's worse: President Bush being aware of these explosives and not doing anything to make sure they were secured, or not knowing that they were there at all and unsecured. Regardless, it is just one more glaring indication that the Bush administration has bumbled through this war in a manner that has put the entire world at greater risk of violence and terrorism.
I was so pissed off that I went and worked out. While I was sweating on some stupid machine, I was thinking, what should we do in Iraq? I think we should get the hell out. 380 tons of conventional weapons can blow up a lot of people. It seems that every insurgent we kill only seems to mobilize two or three more. I think at this point, it's a lose lose situation. I was just wondering what you would do if you were elected president.
Posted by: Ashley at October 25, 2004 08:55 PMDamn them! So many have died and so many more will thanks to these bloody idiots! I think you are right; we should get out of Iraq ASAP. Though I feel sorry for the Iraqiis left behind; those that collaborated with us are dead meat.
Posted by: gbreez at October 25, 2004 09:16 PMIdeally, in my mind, we would get out and have a trial period during which we really DO direct the country's oil resources to rebuilding efforts and job training for Iraqis. As long as we are there, the insurgency will continue and people will continue dying.
Violence only begets more violence. And I believe that a peaceful withdrawal of forces would have the opposite effect of what Bush claims it would have, which is to encourage terrorists and insurgents and make them feel as if they've won. In fact, I think if our government had harnessed the sympathy of other nations after Sept. 11th rather than alienating them with our arrogance, we would be all around better equipped to handle the "war on terrorism."
Staying in and staying the current course only sends the message that we are obstinate and unwilling to change course when it's clear that our strategy is not working. That is, if you can get past the fact that we should never have gone in there in the first place.
I also think that if we made a good faith effort to stop nuclear proliferation, including OUR OWN, it would send a powerful message that we do not consider ourselves above any international law. We should also stop the CIA from whisking people off as prisoners without providing any information to the rest of the world about who, where and why they are in custody.
I think our worst problem is all of the ulterior motives that have spun out of control and gotten in the way of a truly peaceful resolution. The oil interests, the alliances with certain terrorist-harboring-weapons-building nations and the harsh condemnation of others. When you exhibit hypocricy to the world, the world has no interest in stepping in to help carry out your devious plans.
That's the problem Bush faces now. People don't trust him. Other countries don't trust him. Why should they? He's a loose cannon. The bad news never stops pouring forth. The revelations of deceit and incompetence come in daily doses. Today was just one more. One more thing republicans will happily ignore. One more thing for democrats to point to while shrieking at top octave, trying desperately to be heard.
We need to set an example for the rest of the world that violence and war really ARE the very last resort. But how can you demand peaceful diplomacy from other nations and leaders when you don't have a glimmer of an idea how to implement it yourself? When everything you stand for seems to contradict the very notion of diplomacy and democracy?
We need to show Iraq that we really do believe in peace. We really do believe in democracy, so that they will have some incentive to desire it themselves? How could you point to our country right now as an example?
Problem is, we've already fucked the whole thing up so bad, it's hard to say how it could possibly be mended? All I can think over and over is "what a fucking disaster...what a fucking disaster." I wish I could feel more hopeful than that, but no one has given me a reason thus far.
Excuse the long winded comment, I get carried away.
Posted by: Maria at October 25, 2004 10:03 PMWell you finally acknowledged the existense of Saddam's WMD and his WMD program.
Snack on that my pacifist friends.
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 25, 2004 11:25 PMPlease point out where anyone admitted that he had WMDs. Still toting that myth around are you?
Posted by: Maria at October 25, 2004 11:28 PMOops!! Looks like you'll have to get upset about a different subject.
From Drudge Report:
...But tonight, NBCNEWS reported, once: The 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives were already missing back in April 10, 2003 -- when U.S. troops arrived at the installation south of Baghdad!
An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.
According to NBCNEWS, the HMX and RDX explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.
It is not clear why the NYTIMES failed to report the cache had been missing for 18 months -- and was reportedly missing before troops even arrived.
The TIMES left the impression the weapons site had been looted since Iraq has been under US control.
[In a fresh Page One story set for Tuesday on the matter, the TIMES once again omits any reference to troops not finding any explosives at the site when they arrived in April of 2003. Attempts to reach managing editor Jill Abramson late Monday were unsuccessful.]
"The U.S. Army was at the site one day after the liberation and the weapons were already gone," a top Republican blasted from Washington late Monday.
The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003 when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers.
Details always make the story credible.....
Posted by: Mad Mikey at October 25, 2004 11:39 PMJust something I was wondering... why do other countries have "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and we have "Weapons of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom", not to mention Liberty, Equality, Justice, whatever...
Posted by: Ashley at October 26, 2004 12:12 AMWhile men and women fight for the freedom of others - you work out and drink Starbucks, Ashley. Way to go Hero!
The article you cited makes a direct reference to WMD's, Maria. Put the puzzle together.
I'm simply using YOUR article that YOU used.
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 26, 2004 12:45 AMCNN also has the story in case you doubt the validity of the Drudge Report....
Posted by: Mad Mikey at October 26, 2004 09:23 AM"While men and women fight for the freedom of others - you work out and drink Starbucks, Ashley. Way to go Hero!"
They're not fighting for the freedom of others. They're fighting for oil and power and Bush's personal crusade. Though I have no doubt that they wish they were fighting for freedom and their intentions and valor are to be commended.
And since when is working out and drinking Starbucks a crime Gordon? I thought that was one of the things that were so great about America? One of the things that the terrorists supposedly hate and our soldiers are supposedly dying for? The freedom to work out and drink starbucks and not be bothered?
What is freedom to you Gordon? I really wonder. Because your definition and that of many other republicans really seems to differ from the conventional definition.
As for the article, I don't see it mentioning WMDs anywhere. And if what you're trying to say is that Saddam had WMDs as described by the administration as our reason for war, we already know that he didn't. Isn't that bag of bullshit getting a little heavy to carry around on your back?
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2004 09:52 AMYou know what bothers me? If they couldn't secure a small stock pile of explosives like this - what was their plan to secure all of the supposed WMD's they thought were there?
Posted by: nunya at October 26, 2004 10:23 AMand "gordon" - what are you doing, "hero" ?
Taking your fat ass out on fishing trips while these men and women fight an injust war, you go on frat boy drinking binges to Georgia with other pussy rednecks who can talk a big game.
What have you done?
Posted by: nunya at October 26, 2004 10:26 AMBURN!!!
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2004 10:28 AMSpeaking of Georgia and talking a big game, did you ever mop up that yellow puddle, Coach Nunya? You're a no-show. Again.
Maria, are you seriously telling me that an ATOM BOMB and it's program are not a WMD or a WMD program?
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 26, 2004 10:48 AMOf course it is. But that's not what was there. The atomic program had already been dismantled and what remained were hundreds of conventional explosives. READ Gordon READ.
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2004 10:50 AMAnd you seem to miss the point that Bush has made the world MORE dangerous by not securing this facility at the first opportunity.
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2004 10:51 AMagain, "gordon" I never said I was going to be there. I am not getting back into this back and fourth bullshit with you and your butt pirate frat faggot friend.
Maria - they are reach for straws - if they find a fucking rio snapper, they think it is a WMD.'
A small pile of explosives and some industrial radioactive material is not a WMD. Could it be contrewed as a WMD - if put together yes, but again, this was not one of those "WMD's" that BushCO was talkimg about.
Again, my question stands unanswered - if they couldn't secure a small stockpile like this, how would they have secured all the supposed WMD's they talked about in the first place? Shit, they can't even secure oil pipelines.
Posted by: nunya at October 26, 2004 10:55 AMOh I read it, Maria. Are you suggesting that something that's dismantled can't be put back together? Are you aware of what dimantled means?
Time and time again you have clearly stated that NO WMD's or Programs ever existed in Iraq. It's the beating drum for the left.
Clearly they did. How can you aregue the evidence YOU cited?
So, did Iraq have WMD's or not?
I'm ready for the backpedaling now.
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 26, 2004 11:27 AMAgain, my question stands unanswered - if they couldn't secure a small stockpile like this, how would they have secured all the supposed WMD's they talked about in the first place? Shit, they can't even secure oil pipelines.
Posted by: nunya at October 26, 2004 11:29 AMLook at you backpedal Gordon! First they said WMDs in the article, then they didn't, then they said atomic bomb, but they actually didn't, because it was dismantled, but dismantled means it could be put back together and now you're telling me that I said there were never any WMDs in Iraq? I've never said that. I've said that there were no WMDs when Bush said there were. And I was right. Dismantled does not infer that it will be put back together. Dismantled means taken apart, and in this case, there was never a move to put it back together so you can stop with the Bushit retoric of "he could have! He wanted to! It was possible!" BUT IT WASN'T.
Quit your whining now Gordon. No one wants to see you cry like a little bitch. I'm sorry that your glass house has shattered and that your dear leader has turned out to be a failure as all us dems predicted. I know it hurts. But stop with the crying and transparent attempts to elicit a reaction.
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2004 11:31 AM"I am not getting back into this back and fourth bullshit with you and your butt pirate frat faggot friend."
Are you trying to tell me that you hate gays and you can't spell or use proper grammar?
Maria,
You're starting to sound more and more like Nunya everyday. I guess that's what happens when he's the only regular you got. I haven't backpedaled on a thing. YOU have.
typical GOP response.
Again, my question stands unanswered - if they couldn't secure a small stockpile like this, how would they have secured all the supposed WMD's they talked about in the first place? Shit, they can't even secure oil pipelines.
i don't hate gays - I just hate you two gays.
Posted by: nunya at October 26, 2004 11:36 AMOh wow Gordon that really hurt.
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2004 11:36 AMGo mop up that yellow puddle and I'll address your question NeoCUNT.
As for you Maria, my intention was not to hurt anymore than yours do. It's just an observation, that's all. Nunya's starting to rub off on you.
Posted by: Gordon at October 26, 2004 11:56 AManswer the question, you piece of trash. oh wait, I forgot, you need to go fix the roof of your double wide after that 'cane came through.
Posted by: nunya at October 26, 2004 11:59 AMNunya's having a breakdown.
Posted by: Gordon at October 26, 2004 12:08 PMwell, since these two butt pirate dolts avoid answering adult questions either because they can't or don't want to, I am done with them until the next time.
maria, you should ban them for their lack of any semblance of intelligence.
Are you telling Maria what to do with her blog again?
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 26, 2004 12:28 PMgolly gordon, for someone with such a firm grasp on grammer, I am surprised you don't know the differecne between a demand and a suggestion "maria, you SHOULD..." suggests, it doesn't demand. If I were to tell her what to do with her blog, I would have said "Maria, DO.."
Elementary school grammer, dimwit.
Posted by: nunya at October 26, 2004 01:21 PMand let's see if he is too stupid to see the comedy in what/how I wrote.
Posted by: nunya at October 26, 2004 01:31 PMGordon, Gordon, Gordon,
In fact, I don't drink Starbuck's, I try not to support corporate America bullshit, I'm drinking some 'no name brand' seeing as how I'm a poor college student who's trying to get into a good grad school so I can pay back massive loans and actually make a difference in this world. Yes, I do workout, I don't eat fast food, what's your point? I bet you drive a big gas guzzling SUV which you've never even put in 4-wheel drive, just so you can accomodate your big ass. Well Gordon... I pose a question to you. Tell me why, since you're so hell bent on defending the president, Why President Bush is the most polarizing president this country has ever seen? He took the United States from being an object of worldwide sympathy after September 11, to being the target of worldwide condemnation. A substantial body of opinion at home and abroad saw his leadership as a greater threat to world peace than were the terrorists he was fighting. Then, Bush proceeded to embark on the most daring risk any president can take-one that even F.D.R. would not take against the threat of Hitler-taking the United States into war amid national dissention rather than unity. All of this was done when Bush hadn’t even won the popular vote throughout the country. Tell me how you defend our president on that one Gordon? By the way, I've still never met a Gordon that I've liked, way to keep it up!!
Talk to the hand Ashley, I'm busy at the moment engaging in real debate with Nunya.
NeoCUNT,
First you have a meltdown and try to get personal with me. Like I care, hearing YOU take potshots at my finances is laughable.
Then you instruct Maria on how to run her blog, again. Get your own blog you douche bag. Ban me yourself. Hell, ask Maria if you can co-author with her.
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 26, 2004 01:52 PMagain, go read and comprehend the words you halfwit.
and ash - don't expect him to answer your questions, he is mater at avoiding and spinning. in fact, he does drive a wasteful suv. he is also aggressive and just a plain asshole.
Posted by: nunya at October 26, 2004 01:58 PMGordon,
"Talk to the hand Ashley" What are we, an elementary school girl? Let me know when you do want to engage in "Real Debate". As a fourth year political science I'm actually looking forward to this. I normally don't waste my time on people like you, but this sounds like fun. Gordon, this is what I do, I debate and learn about politics for many hours a day, so bring it on!!!
Nunya,
I do believe you're right. Can't you just picture him cutting you off on the freeway with his "big rig" and his Bush Cheney '04 sticker.
lets just put it this way, he actually bragged about chasing down another driver who supposedly cut him off (I am sure "gordon" was just sooo innocent too). i wonder if he beats his women too?
Posted by: nunya at October 26, 2004 02:34 PMYour boy Kerry is so giddy over this non-report that they're blowing HARD CASH to make a commercial about it.
He'd be spending the money more wisely on a commercial about giant mutant spiders emerging from the planet core because the United States didn't sign the Kyoto Accords.
Doesn't that say something about his mental capacity to determine what is wise spending versus wasteful spending....?
Food for thought.
Posted by: Mad Mikey at October 26, 2004 03:14 PMOf course you would call it a "non-report." But if the tables were turned you'd be squealing like a little pig.
If you think it's a "non-report" that our government failed to secure explosive materials or even make it a priority to look into it, that these weapons could be anywhere, then please tell me how you can be so fucking blase about that but you were on fire about the WMDs that didn't even exist?
What a bunch of hypocrites.
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2004 03:45 PMnon-report because it's false. That doesn't seem to bother you NeoComs, though. Heck, you'll forge documents if it supports your cause.
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 26, 2004 06:09 PM"you'll forge documents if it supports your cause."
Pot, kettle, black.
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2004 07:08 PMExample?
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 26, 2004 07:11 PMI'll give you a hint: YELLOW CAKE URANIUM
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2004 07:16 PMBush Co forged those documents? Source?
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 26, 2004 07:17 PMBush knew they were forged, but cited them in his State of the Union address anyway. He might as well have forged them himself.
Do the research asshole.
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2004 07:21 PMAhhhh, I get it now. It's another one of your "beliefs" that you're trying to pass off as fact.
In other words....you're full of shit.
Again.
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 26, 2004 07:24 PMI'm not your mommy.
This is just one more instance of you being uninformed about THE FACTS which are that president Bush was presented with a blatantly forged document, jumped on it because it supported his ultimate desire to go to war with Iraq, and then, even after finding out the document was false, stating in his SOU that Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program, which we now of course know, he did not. He stated in his State of the Union address that Saddam was actively seeking yellow cake uranium, which by that time, he already knew was false.
Don't blame me if you're too much of a whiney/lazy little bitch to look it up yourself or if you didn't pay proper attention to the news during that time period, as I did.
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2004 07:31 PMNow I am going to get back to something more pleasant than sitting here reading your diarrhea of the keyboard.
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2004 07:33 PMWhy? Are you done sharing your beliefs with me?
The fact is, you just lied. You. Just. Blatantly. Lied.
Fact: Bush Co didn't forge the documents.
Fact: Bush Co didn't know they were forged.
You got caught making things up so you're taking your toys and going home.
You got schooled again.
Class dismissed.
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 26, 2004 07:36 PMYou're wrong Geoffrey. But it's fun watching you spazz out.
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2004 07:41 PMSpazzing? I'm laughing. I love watching you get caught making claims you can't back up with facts. Any time you NeoComs make fools of yourself, it's a good time for me.
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 26, 2004 07:44 PMYou are SO spazzing out. You can tell me it's not true as much as you want, but studies have shown that most Bush supporters are in a severe state of denial and it's no surprise to me that you're one of them. I know it to be a fact that those documents were forged, Bush knew they were forged, and he still referred to them in his SOU. You can cry and blubber as much as you want. "It's not true! My dear leader! He could never...! It's not true! You bitch! How could you say something so untrue???? Waaaaah!!!!"
Well sorry chump, but it is true. The more you deny it, the more ignorant you appear.
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2004 07:47 PMI know it to be a fact that those documents were forged, Bush knew they were forged, and he still referred to them in his SOU.
If it's fact, then enlighten me. Show me the facts. Pony up.
Here's a fact. You can't.
You got schooled.
Again.
Class Dismissed.
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 26, 2004 07:50 PMHere's a fact, you can do the research yourself. I'm not your mommy miss honey.
The sad thing about you refusing to do the research yourself, is that you are the one who looks like a moron for expecting others to educate you.
Well sorry. Your class may be dismissed, but mine never started, because I'm not here to hold your little hand and guide you to the truth.
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2004 07:52 PMThe sad thing about you refusing to do the research yourself, is that you are the one who looks like a moron for expecting others to educate you.
I've done the research. The facts don't exist. That's why you can't produce them.
You made the claim. You stated you had evidence to support it. Let's see it.
Oh wait.
You can't.
You made it up.
What's that on your cheek? Ahhh, a handprint.
Waaaapiiiiish.
You have no game.
Class Dismissed.
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 26, 2004 07:55 PMHahaaa! Denial. You either don't know how to use Google, or you are just the most pathetic example of someone who has retreated into denial that I've ever witnessed.
The thing is, if you were alive during that time and paying any attention, you wouldn't even need to do the research, because you would already know it was a fact because you would have witnessed the entire thing playing out.
But you're one of those Bushies who just feels better if you live in denial. Suit yourself. No skin off my back.
Carry on with the whining, crying, desperately trying to get the last word. It's a familiar shtick.
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2004 08:43 PMpoor kid has penis envy, so he always needs to have the last word.
good thing I am there to take care of jillian.
Posted by: nunya at October 26, 2004 08:49 PMYou won't post your "evidence" because there IS no evidence.
Fact: You lied.
Fact: You got caught.
You have no game.
Class Dismissed.
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 26, 2004 09:12 PMNot to get in between you and Geoff, but if you assert something and say 'So and so reported it', then the onus is upon you Maria to show the proof.
Example: I could say that there are giant mutant spiders living in the Bronx and they feed on young Democratic women working in a law office.
You'd say I'm full of it.
I'd say 'No!! It's true!! I read about it on the Internet!'
You'd say 'Oh yeah? Prove it - provide a source for this wild story'
I'd reply 'You look for it' and you'd get slightly annoyed at having to search for something that I'm asserting.
Posted by: Mad Mikey at October 26, 2004 10:07 PM"Example: I could say that there are giant mutant spiders living in the Bronx and they feed on young Democratic women working in a law office."
See, I didn't read it on the internet. I witnessed it as it was happening in the news and with my own eyes watching Bush's state of the union address. It's a fact.
It's not a wild story. It's reality. Pay attention.
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2004 10:21 PMWrong. It's fiction. You made it up. You got caught.
Post your facts.
What's that? You can't?
Schooled.
You have no game.
Class Dismissed, NeoCom.
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 26, 2004 10:37 PMOh, by the way...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! "I can't prove it because it was on tv".
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Schooled.
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 26, 2004 10:38 PMChrist you're like some kind of parrot or broken record or something. It's creepy.
Because you're like a pathetic groveling jackass, I'm going to throw you a shred to gnaw on.
http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1
I can't wait to hear you come out the face with all your desperate objections. Bush cited the documents in his SOU, even after it was revealed that they were obvious forgeries. But he wanted so badly to use it, that he said it anyway. I remember when it happened. I remember the documents coming out as "evidence," I remember them being debunked as forgeries, and I remember Bush stating in his address to the nation that Saddam had been actively seeking yellow cake uranium from Africa. That was, of course, in between the nauseating repetition of his usual canned retoric that you so greedily lap up like a hungry stray.
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2004 10:50 PMFirst, you said that Bush Co forged documents. Then you changed it to he knew about them beforehand. I'll let that slide though. We'll pretend that's what we were talking about, since it took forever for you to find anything to post.
Then you post an editorial. We'll let that slide, too. Strangely enough, the editorial maintains:
This official told me that the I.A.E.A. has not been able to determine who actually prepared the documents.
“It could be someone who intercepted faxes in Israel, or someone at the headquarters of the Niger Foreign Ministry, in Niamey. We just don’t know,” the official said. “Somebody got old letterheads and signatures, and cut and pasted.”
That doesn't really bolster the claims you made, does it? Let's ignore that for the moment, and move on to what's really important.
CAN YOU FUCKING READ? That editorial not only doesn't contain any facts or sources, it also doesn't even suggest, let alone prove, your secondary claim that Bush knew about the forgeries before he went public with them.
Do you bother to review your sources before you print them? Holy fuck, no wonder you're a secretary.
You have not game.
Class Dismissed!
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 26, 2004 11:08 PM"What are we, an elementary school girl? Let me know when you do want to engage in "Real Debate"."
It was obviously a joke. Your sense of humor rivals nunya's command of the English language.
"As a fourth year political science I'm actually looking forward to this."
Oh no! A liberal arts major! And Poly Sci? The K-mart of degrees? What, no other major would take you? Bring it on, undergrad.
"I normally don't waste my time on people like you, but this sounds like fun."
Yeah, as I can see on this blog your time has been well spent with the likes of nunya and the rest of the Leper colony. But how soon I forget you go to college. Wow. I'm surprised that with all three hours of class a day you still find time to pencil me in.
As for driving an SUV? No. I drive a mint 1970 Chevrolet 1/2 Ton that probably gets 13 miles a gallon at it's best. 350. 4 Barrel. Dual Exhaust. Turbomatic transmission. It's my wife that drives the family truckster - 2003 Suburban. 10 miles a gallon at best. And yeah, if I see you and Nunya driving your shitbox Yugo's because it's all you can afford and you're slowing me down for a meeting, I'll not only cut you off, but I'll toss you the bird and have another laugh at your expense!
"By the way, I've still never met a Gordon that I've liked, way to keep it up!!"
You hater! How dare you stereotype me! Do you feel the same about blacks and jews? As for Ashleys, it seems a popular name late night on Cinemax.
"This is what I do, I debate and learn about politics for many hours a day, so bring it on!!!"
Well consider class open, undergrad.
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 26, 2004 11:09 PMMaria,
I may get a headache trying to catch up with you and Geoffrey, but it seems your knee deep in a whole lot of backpedaling.
Must be time to shift topics.
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 26, 2004 11:14 PMClass is open. Take your seats please, NeoComs.
"but studies have shown that most Bush supporters are in a severe state of denial"
Oh Christ! Here's another claim I just can't help but laugh at! I just did a search and can't find these "studies"? Could you please cite something to stand behind more of your facts?
And no, the Howard Stern Show DOES NOT count as a legitimate source.
"I know it to be a fact that those documents were forged, Bush knew they were forged, and he still referred to them in his SOU."
Blah blah blah. You think. You believe. Cite some facts Maria. Or is this just based on another "little poll" you took around the office?
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 26, 2004 11:29 PMI NEVER SAID BUSH CO FORGED THE DOCUMENTS YOU ASSWIPE. I SAID THAT HE USED FORGED DOCUMENTS TO SECURE PERMISSION FROM CONGRESS TO GO TO IRAQ. Get a fucking clue. Read jackass, read.
Once again, too stupid to recognize facts when they are right in front of you.
Finally, that document was so obviously forged that no one could even believe it got past an initial glance! It's a fact that the document was used to bolster Bush's claims about Saddam. It's a fact that it was forged. It's a fact that he relied on it anyway and represented to the American people and to Congress that it proved that Saddam was actively working on a program to produce "nucular" weapons. It's a fact that the document was a crappy forgery and there is no reason why the Bush administration should not be held responsible and accountable for not examining that information more closely and/or not making sure it was authenticated before the administration chose to rely on it as a crucial peace of evidence in the bid to invade Iraq.
Cry all you want Geoffrey. The truth hurts. You'd be better suited to just take it like a man. Alas, you can't, because you're just a little bitch for the Bush administration.
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2004 11:44 PM"Oh Christ! Here's another claim I just can't help but laugh at! I just did a search and can't find these "studies"? Could you please cite something to stand behind more of your facts?"
Posted in the latest entry on this blog. Gordon, don't make your little pea brain work too hard. I can almost hear it wheezing from all the effort.
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2004 11:50 PMRead? HAHAHAHAHAHA. Go back to fetching coffee. I said they forged documents. You said pot...etc. Then you said:
Bush knew they were forged, but cited them in his State of the Union address anyway. He might as well have forged them himself.
Well, break out the evidence. I'm still waiting.
Once again, too stupid to recognize facts when they are right in front of you.
You've yet to produce any facts. Only your beliefs. Oh, you also threw in the beliefs of a few other people, too. Fax, coffee fetcher....facts. Got any?
Cry all you want Geoffrey. The truth hurts. You'd be better suited to just take it like a man. Alas, you can't, because you're just a little bitch for the Bush administration.
Who's crying? You're spinning into a tizzy because you don't have a single fact to back up your beliefs. Calling your belief a fact hardly makes it so.
Speaking of bitches, you're MY bitch. This is the second thread in a row I've owned you.
You have no game.
Class Dismissed.
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 26, 2004 11:52 PMOnce again, your dillusions are too grand for even an expert faxer and coffee fetcher like me to tackle.
You dreamed I was your bitch. And then you woke up.
Cry on. Cry on.
Posted by: Maria at October 27, 2004 12:03 AMSeen the breaking news Maria?
You and Kerry both look like fools.
FACTS and EVIDENCE have been presented and they are contradicy your and Kerry's charges.
Wapishhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Posted by: Gordon at October 27, 2004 12:11 AMAs we've seen, she doesn't need facts. She has her beliefs
Schools out. You're my bitch.
Class Dismissed.
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 27, 2004 12:14 AM