3 tons, 380 tons whatever

ABC News is reporting that the amount of explosives that apparently disappeared from Al Qaqaa may have been much less than reported.
ABC says it has "confidential IAEA documents" showing that "on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over 3 tons of RDX was stored at the facility" not 380 tons as reported by The New York Times on Monday.

Now, aside from the discrepancy in the amount of explosives there's this:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm
So the Russians helped good old Saddam. And Syria, too.

Kerry's gonna need to start checking his sources. If he keeps using the NYT and CBS news for information he's dillusional.

Speaking of dillusional; I am completely disillusioned by the main stream news media. Before the Rather fiasco, I was certain there was a bias but at least they were truthful. After Rather's report, I let it go thinking: "OK bad reporting." Now it is clear that not only is the main stream news media biased, they will do anything and say anything to get a liberal elected. It's not enough anymore to just report the bad things about Republicans, now they have to make up stuff, too. If anyone continues to read the NYT and take what their reading as true, they are just as dillusional as Kerry. (yes, you too Mother.) ANYTHING published in that paper is now suspect. No, I take that back. The majority of the opinion pieces are about as truthful as you can get. But any statistic or "source" of information should be checked or just dismissed. I simple Google search on the topic is usually enough to find more info on it.

Bush is a Liar

If you say it over and over again, you will believe it. really. Remember, 2+2=5. Say it over and over again. You'll eventually believe it. Or ... If you say it enough, to others, they won't question your lies.

For some reason Kerry keeps saying Bush fired General Shinseki after the general reported to Bush that several hundred thousand troops would be required to keep order in a post war Iraq. The general announced in April 2002 his retirement. He recommended the troops in February 2003. In addition, General Shinseki didn't even say more troops were needed. Here is the exchange:

Senator Levin (D-MI) “General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?”
General Shesinski (Army Chief of Staff) “ In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commander's exact requirements . But I think ..."
Levin "How about a range"
General “I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required.”

The same number of troops already there. That's what "what's been mobilized to this point" means. Levin forced a guess and the General made a guess.

Edwards is out there toughly proclaiming "Bush Lied". Yet on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews 10/15/03 he calimed he was not misled.

MATTHEWS: "Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?"
EDWARDS: "Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled."

and ...

MATTHEWS: "If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?"
EDWARDS: "It wouldn’t change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before."

So he wasn't misled AND he would do it all over again. He and Kerry sure know how to play the liberals for all they're worth, don't they?

And now to one of my favorite people to quote, James Lileks. I love his site. He rants, but mostly he talks about his daughter, and his hobbies/collections. I enjoy reading his blog and often also go to the Mineapolis Tribune site to read his columns. He's just a good writer. I have a link to his site over on the left, please go and check it out.
Anyway, Kerry was asked by the New York Times "... what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance," Kerry said. "As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."

here is what Lileks says about this:
"Tony Soprano doesn’t take over schools and shoot kids in the back. The doxies of the Bunny Ranch don’t train at flight schools to ram brothels into skyscrapers.
A nuisance?
A nuisance? I don’t want the definition of success of terrorism to be “it isn’t on the rise.” I want the definition of success to be “free democratic states in the Middle East and the cessation of support of those governments and fascist states we haven’t gotten around to kicking in the ass yet.” I want the definition of success to mean a free Lebanon and free Iran and a Saudi Arabia that realizes there’s no point in funding the fundies. An Egypt that stops pouring out the Jew-hatred as a form of political novacaine to keep the citizens from turning their ire on their own government. I want the definition of success to mean that Europe takes a stand against the Islamicist radicals in their midst before the Wahabbi poison is the only acceptable strain on the continent. Mosquito bites are a nuisance. Cable outages are a nuisance. Someone shooting up a school in Montana or California or Maine on behalf of the brave martyrs of Fallujah isn't a nuisance. It's war.
But that's not the key phrase. This matters: We have to get back to the place we were.
But when we were there we were blind. When we were there we (were) losing. When we were there we died. We have to get back to the place we were. We have to get back to 9/10? We have to get back to the place we were. So we can go through it all again? We have to get back to the place we were. And forget all we’ve learned and done? We have to get back to the place we were. No. I don’t want to go back there. Planes into towers. That changed the terms. I am remarkably disinterested in returning to a place where such things are unimaginable. Where our nighmares are their dreams.
We have to get back to the place we were.
No. We have to go the place where they are."

Pretty good, huh? Thank you.

Draft

Bush is not pushing for a draft. Congressman Rangel from NYC and a Senator from South Carolina are. Bill Frist forced a vote on this legislation in order to finally kill the email rumors. The vote was 402 to 2 to reject the legislation. Even Rangel voted against it. The 2 votes For were Democrats.

Please let this stupid rumor, which was developed with malicious intent to oust the President, to die. If you get that email, copy and paste what I just wrote into a reply to that person so that they may have their fears put to bed. Thank you.

Now say there were a draft, There are already "conscientious objectors" looking for safe haven countries. Gee Wizz.

Debate, War, etc.

Iraq is NOT Vietnam, it's Guadalcanal. Excellent argument.

Take this poll. Interesting to see the results. 51% who took the poll said would vote for Kerry. 60% of same people said Bush would win. How the hell can that be!?!?!?! A lot of insecure Democrats is my guess. Issues rank higher than leadership character and party affiliation. How the hell can that be? All the major news talked about after the debate was how good Kerry looked and how confident and how stately. He didn't say shit about the issues except to proclaim "I will be tough on terrorism." or something like that. Just because he said it doesn't mean it'll happen. And if it does, for how long? A week? Or until some other issue makes the news? Or what if France and Germany decide he shouldn't? National Security was the most important issue. Way ahead of foreign affairs and the economy. The way things are now, foreign affairs should be lumped in with national security. That means 56% said that was most important. I happen to agree. (Unless foreign affairs means kissing Germany and France's asses.) All the other stuff doesn't add up to a hill of beans unless we are secure and safe.

I didn't watch the debate last night. I heard it was a draw. Doesn't that mean Cheney won? I mean they couldn't come out and say Cheney won so they had to say it was a draw. Here's the transcript. I think he won. Speaking of that debate, here is the fact checker.

Finally, A biased but very funny and insightful debate review of the debate.

the Nyquil kicked in. good night