For those interested in good historical profiles of the current candidates for the U.S. Presidency, watch the PBS' "The Choice of 2004":

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/view/

(There is a videolink, so you can watch it online too, either the complete 120 minute program, or its segments...)

Plus, tonight on PBS (9:00PM E.T.) will be broadcast the critical in-depth look on our affairs in Iraq called "Rumsfeld's War":

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/

JD I have that show recorded on my DVR

Can't finish going through it, though,

I was almost sure that you watched it already... :wink:

Hehe

Man, it's brutal on Bush's early years. But he deserved it

Mwahahaah

http://www.drudgereport.com/nbcw6.htm

This proves that NY Times is a right-wing outfit intent on insuring Bush win. Instead of waiting till CBS airs its piece on election eve, it reported about the missing explosives yesterday, giving NBC News adequate time to report that the story's inaccurate.

BIATCHSLAPPED

what's this all about? I don't have a TV and this is the first I've heard of this. Which newsteam put it together and/or which station is hosting it?

-Dolce

It's Frontline on PBS.

Does the 380 tons story give any creedence to the idea that perhaps there were weapons of mass destructiion in Iraq?

John Kerry seems to ]think so.

The Drudge story is typical drudge spin and omit.

The story NBC relates of the visit to the area wasn't the first visit in the war to the area. Article

This article is about the same al Qa Qaa complex.

"The Record (Canada) April 05, 2003

U.S. troops find signs of chemical readiness

SOURCE: Associated Press

As the military advances closer to Baghdad, signs of Iraqi chemical preparedness are multiplying, although there is still no conclusive evidence Saddam Hussein possesses any weapons of mass destruction.....

Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, said troops found thousands of five-centimetre by 12-centimetre boxes, each containing three vials of white powder, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in chemical warfare.

A senior U.S. official familiar with initial testing said the powder was believed to be explosives."

I bolded two words, to help those who like to skim.

This was days before the visit by troops mentioned in the NBC report.

So how could they have let that stuff disappear? The White House spokesman explains it pretty clearly:

"Q But after Iraqi Freedom, there were those caches all around, wasn't the multinational force -- who was responsible for keeping track --
MR. McCLELLAN: At the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom there were a number of priorities. It was a priority to make sure that the oil fields were secure, so that there wasn't massive destruction of the oil fields, which we thought would occur. It was a priority to get the reconstruction office up and running. It was a priority to secure the various ministries, so that we could get those ministries working on their priorities, whether it was -

Q So it was the multinational force's responsibility --

MR. McCLELLAN: There were a number of -- well, the coalition forces, there were a number of priorities at the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. "

Yes, securing the oil was of higher value to the administration than securing the weapons of mass destruction. Of course if they had used enough troops like experienced generals advised them to, they could have done both, but when forced to choose they protected the oil over explosives.

Archie, so you're suggesting that the explosives were moved from the site within a course of 6 days while the U.S. soldiers were working there?

http://www.civilrights.org/issues/glbt/ ... m?id=25769

Can you say "one week left till election?"

The problem with the Bush statements (about civil unions) is that he is trying to appeal to moderates and undecided (exactly as you said, a week before election... :wink: ) but right after the election, if he wins, he goes back to his usual bigoted statements...

The article (and the Charlie Gibson interview on ABC on which this article is based) is trying to portray it as he had no choice in the past and chose the hard-line position on the issue as to appeal to conservatives within the party but I simply don't believe him that he is really telling the truth of what he believes!!! As simple as that!!!

No I'm suggesting one group of soldiers came to the site, found the stuff, and moved on, and days later another group came there and found nothing. I'm not blaming the soldiers, I'm blaming the pentagon planners for 1) not having enough troops despite being warned otherwise and 2) poor choice of priorities.

I don't believe it either. But it really does say something about the current environment, in which Bush is forced to say things like that to appeal to moderates.

The country is more than ready for civil unions.

The bush civil union comment seems stupid as a political move since Rove has bet everything on evangelical base turnout, and that comment is making them angry.

So why did Bush say it? My guess is that it's what he really believes.

Lol I logged on this guy to see if there was a way to delete the account and got interested in reading the board and posted. lmao.

This is Archie Gates, it's a name I registered before I decided to go with my BOM name to avoid confusion (it would have taken months of constant explaining to people who I am, not worth it...).

I'm listening/watching to Lynn Cullen on C-SPAN, she is hillarious... She's really giving it to all right-winger war-mongerers... :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

Except the first group of soldiers you're talking about never found the stuff that's now missing.

Wow, I'm skeptical of Bush, whily you're actually believing him. That's a first ;-)

Wow...and I agree with Krem.
You know, Bush also said he supported re-instating the soon-to-expire ban on certain firearms last month. Note how those arms are no longer banned.

-Dolce

Hey, just ebcause I bashed Bush once, doesn't mean that you now have a cart-blanche! The assault weapons ban is not something that Bush decides on.

Watched it yesterday and wanted to post my quick impressions but the server was down (Eagle, great work btw for fixing it so fast... thanks... :wink: )

It's really worth watching it, portrays Rumsfeld and his, almost maniacal, drive behind restructuring of our military, growing schism btw. the civilian head of Pentagon (Rumsfeld himself), his deputies and the military personnel brought up in the tradition of the Powell Doctrine...

One impression I took away from this program is that in Vietnam and now in Iraq the civilian heads of Pentagon were usually the reason for escalating conflicts, that people who had no military experience were so easy to jump into a war-mode and create a bigger mess than the "generals" who were educated in military tradition and had better grasps of complexities of warfare... Wasn't the idea of a civilian leading Pentagon and DoD to actually combat this...

It also juxtapositions Powell Doctrine, which in itself was born out of painful Vietnam era, with Rumsfeld's transformation drive to modernize the military, which completely eroded Powell Doctrine legacy, demoralized army, is still, and will continue, causing trouble in Iraq, destroyed our adherence to proven military legal conventions by ignoring military's own legal advice (Jags)...

It is stunning analysis of how such a strong personality (Rumsfeld) can mis-analyze information, convince generals of going against their own principles of warfare. In one word, it is summarized by saying that given Rumsfeld's well-meant drive, workaholic attitude and seeking of and accepting 100% responsibility, he is more suited (character-wise) to be a Secretary of War (it is meant in a good sense, no irony whatsoever...) rather than Secretary of Defense!!!

Watch it and see for yourself...

http://jimtreacher.com/archives/001115.html

Secret Weapon for Bush?

By JOHN TIERNEY

Published: October 24, 2004

To Bush-bashers, it may be the most infuriating revelation yet from the military records of the two presidential candidates: the young George W. Bush probably had a higher I.Q. than did the young John Kerry.

That, at least, is the conclusion of Steve Sailer, a conservative columnist at the Web magazine Vdare.com and a veteran student of presidential I.Q.'s. During the last presidential campaign Mr. Sailer estimated from Mr. Bush's SAT score (1206) that his I.Q. was in the mid-120's, about 10 points lower than Al Gore's.

Mr. Kerry's SAT score is not known, but now Mr. Sailer has done a comparison of the intelligence tests in the candidates' military records. They are not formal I.Q. tests, but Mr. Sailer says they are similar enough to make reasonable extrapolations.

Mr. Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120's, putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry's I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr. Sailer's extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer Qualification Test...

Read the rest by clicking this article headline...