OLD STORY, OLD TRICKS, NEW ELECTION
Recently some of you heard about the story issued by the media that the US Army had negligently allowed Iraqi terrorists (they say militants) to steal over 300 tons of explosives. That story was correct minus some glaring contradictions.
The contradictions are that this:
First, the theft occurred in 2003, April, before our troops could even occupy that area of Iraq. The commanders of the 101st Airborne up to CentCom even said this. An embedded journalist, with NBC even gave the facts. Wow, that was almost a time bomb for Bush. I guess it wouldn't be too suprising that the explosives are being used, due to all of the bombings and the fact that the Iraqis still have RPGs and AKs all over. They found buried jets and tanks, right? Right.....
Second, CBS and 60 Minutes were going to air this as a new story. And right now their reliability is less than that of Michael Jackson running a Child Day Care Center. CBS is still recovering from the Dan Rather Memogate problems with the Bush Air National Guard Allegations. CBS, sorry you guys are a contradiction claiming to be neutral and then report so slanted...
Third, theft may be a bad term to use. Technically, the Iraqi explosives were in the hands of the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard. In a manner of speaking, they weren't stealing their own explosives. That's their argument and their logic. Hey, fair and balanced right? Bill O Reilly would be proud.
Fourth, Kerry said there were no WMDs in Iraq, despite years of contrary speeches and statements. Now, Kerry says those explosives could be WMD compliant and used for worse attacks. Well, John if there were no WMDs then why did you read the same intel and vote for the war, that sent our troops, to get the explosives, that were stolen by the terrorists, that were near the warehouse, in the town near the house that Jack built......
This is a weak attempt to smear Bush as an incompetent leader. Many said let the generals fight the war, which they did. Bush could not possibly intervene in every decision. He acted more like Roosevelt or Lincoln and let the troops do their thing. This is also an indirect slam to our troops. Why not just ask why the troops didn't get there fast enough?
This is an old story, used in an old tactic, in an old tradition, but in a new race.
That is deception and mudslinging.
The contradictions are that this:
First, the theft occurred in 2003, April, before our troops could even occupy that area of Iraq. The commanders of the 101st Airborne up to CentCom even said this. An embedded journalist, with NBC even gave the facts. Wow, that was almost a time bomb for Bush. I guess it wouldn't be too suprising that the explosives are being used, due to all of the bombings and the fact that the Iraqis still have RPGs and AKs all over. They found buried jets and tanks, right? Right.....
Second, CBS and 60 Minutes were going to air this as a new story. And right now their reliability is less than that of Michael Jackson running a Child Day Care Center. CBS is still recovering from the Dan Rather Memogate problems with the Bush Air National Guard Allegations. CBS, sorry you guys are a contradiction claiming to be neutral and then report so slanted...
Third, theft may be a bad term to use. Technically, the Iraqi explosives were in the hands of the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard. In a manner of speaking, they weren't stealing their own explosives. That's their argument and their logic. Hey, fair and balanced right? Bill O Reilly would be proud.
Fourth, Kerry said there were no WMDs in Iraq, despite years of contrary speeches and statements. Now, Kerry says those explosives could be WMD compliant and used for worse attacks. Well, John if there were no WMDs then why did you read the same intel and vote for the war, that sent our troops, to get the explosives, that were stolen by the terrorists, that were near the warehouse, in the town near the house that Jack built......
This is a weak attempt to smear Bush as an incompetent leader. Many said let the generals fight the war, which they did. Bush could not possibly intervene in every decision. He acted more like Roosevelt or Lincoln and let the troops do their thing. This is also an indirect slam to our troops. Why not just ask why the troops didn't get there fast enough?
This is an old story, used in an old tactic, in an old tradition, but in a new race.
That is deception and mudslinging.
posted by NDwalters @ 1:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home