Bush Invents Irony: Kerry's Revenge

Remember that classic Dubya quote from yesterday, about not wanting someone who jumped to conclusions in the White House? Well good on the Kerry folks, they wasted no time turning the quote around and using it to some effect:

Bush on Wednesday accused Kerry of opportunism, saying: "A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as commander in chief ... that is part of a pattern of a candidate who will say anything to get elected."

Kerry threw the words back at the president 24 hours later, announcing he was going "to apply the Bush standard" and declaring: "Mr. President, I agree with you."

"George Bush jumped to conclusions about 9/11 and Saddam Hussein," he said. "George Bush jumped to conclusions about weapons of mass destruction and he rushed to war without a plan for the peace. George Bush jumped to conclusions about how the Iraqi people would receive our troops. He not only jumped to conclusions, he ignored the facts he was given."

Attaboy, John!

Comments

[Chrish]

Oh please, sounds like school kids. "Oh yeah,
well you did this and that.".

[Jeff]

School kids or not, the fact of the matter is that Bush has the same facts on the missing explosives as Kerry. Shouldn't he have a bit more? Shouldn't he be able to answer us and say, "After the fall of Baghdad, we checked all the bunkers in al Aquaa, compared what we found with the weapons documented by IAEA and..." came to whatever conclusion?

Or do you feel safer that he found out 18 months later that there was a problem with the biggest weapons depot in Iraq? That he didn't have an answer for us when the news broke despite knowing 10 days earlier? That he didn't respond to any questions about the explosives for several days after, trying to fend it off until after the elections?

No accountability, no answers, lies, and incompetence. That's what a vote for Bush is all about.

[Chrish]

Oh please, get real. Unlike Kerry, he can't answer questions if he doesn't have the facts.

At this point in time they aren't even sure whether there were any weapons there to begin with. First it's 380 tons, then 180, then 3, which is it? They're now even talking that maybe, just maybe the Russians, at the request of
Hussein, pulled that stuff out before the war
and moved them to Syria or possibly Lebanon.

Why don't we, you and I, wait until all of the facts are out before jumping to conclusions?

[Jeff]

Chrish, here are the facts. The IAEA documented the weapons and placed a seal on them. They were there in March 2003. The war started and Bush took control of Iraq. 18 months later, he STILL doesn't know the facts, despite the weapons being incredibly dangerous to us and our troops. You want to wait another 18 months to figure out what happened? Or should Bush have talked to the IAEA himself instead of letting some Iraqi official do it?

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847&page=2

More facts coming out... video from ABC taken April 18, showing the barrels of explosives. Did anyone secure them? No. Did anyone ask questions? Only some poor Iraqi official 3 weeks ago. There's no defense Chrish, Bush should know the facts instead of waiting for the facts. The place was under our control or should have been under control. 18 months of nothing indicates no one from the administration even thought about securing the largest weapons site in Iraq. Pure incompetence. No defense.

I would hope to have somebody in the White House who would notice even 3 tons of explosives going missing in the middle of a war zone.

'Nuff said.

[Chrish]

All of the facts are still not in. The military
is still investigating and provided some additional facts this morning regarding this
question.

Intersting how the IAEA rep had the information
over two weeks ago and waited till just a few days before the election to release it?

3 tons? How about the fact that the military had
dealt with close to 400,000 tons of weapons and
their destruction? Nevermind that it's starting
to appear to be far less than the reported 3 tons.

Before Kerry has a pissy fit he should gather all
the facts. Oh wait, that's right he bases his statements on partial facts and second hand information just like he did when he sat before
Congress and condemned all of us Vets, including
himself, for committing acts of atrocities in Vietnam....

Yes, I do say let's get all of the facts before
passing judgement.....

[Jeff]

Um, the IAEA received the letter from Iraqi officials on October 10. Bush was told on October 15. According to the IAEA, they were waiting to give the U.S. a chance to take care of things when the Times and 60 minutes broke the story.

You're still missing the point Chrish. These are documented weapons, whether it be 3 tons or 300 tons. The IAEA accounted for them and sealed them in the largest munitions dump in Iraq. The problem with Bush is not resolving what happened to them, the problem is, why the hell doesn't he know? Why did he need a letter from an Iraqi official to take action?

It does not take a brain surgeon to think after the war, hey, maybe I should compare notes with the IAEA. They have records of weapons, this war is about weapons, this is the largest munitions dump in Iraq. Maybe I should let the IAEA come back in and figure out if everything is still in order. Instead, Bush doesn't let the IAEA come in and doesn't even check to see if the weapons they documented are accounted for.

You might recall that Bush accused Saddam Hussein of never accounting for tons of anthrax and other WMD and that he went to war because of it. Surely you're not going to tell me that he couldn't have ordered someone to factcheck against the IAEA's record in 18 months? Or that he should have figured out if there was anything inside and guarded the site?

You're wrongly focusing on how much explosives there were and how many other explosives were destroyed. Irrelevant. It's about attending to the most basic task... check to see where documented weapons are. If they're lost, fine we go from there. Instead, 18 months too late, Bush once again has the deer in the headlights look. This, despite knowing the story nearly 10 days before we did. How many tons of explosives does it take to kill our troops, Chrish? Or should I say how many pounds?

[Jeff]

Bush should know the facts already, Chrish, even if the facts are bad. Not trying to figure out facts 18 months too late. You keep saying, let's wait for the facts. Well, here's the fact. Our President doesn't know what happened. His administration doesn't know what happened.

380 unaccounted for tons of explosives. Whether it's that much or whether it was destroyed or looted, shouldn't someone somewhere know? It doesn't bother you that all our info is from news organizations and that no one even cared where these explosives went for 18 months?

[Chrish]

Of course it bothers me Jeff but, I'm not as quick
to jump on the blame wagon as everyone else is.
They way everyone is talking Bush is supposed to be standing on every single military person in
Iraq and tell them what they're supposed to do,
"micro manage". The job of the military is to wage war, plan out the battles both strategically
and tactically, destroy the enemies ability to wage war. If, as has been reported, weapons have gone missing, which the amount still has not been
confirmed, then the military did not secure the weapons depot as they should have. That is not
Bush's fault anymore than it would have been Clinton's, or Kerry's fault if they were acting
President.

If you want to cast blame cast it where it belongs
but, be very certain where you cast that blame.

[Jeff]

Chrish, I already said that I'm not casting blame for the missing explosives. However, I do cast blame on Bush for not being upfront with it. For a guy who pride himself on being such a straight shooter, what's his answer on this? Remember, he knew about it on October 15. After we found out about it, he went into silence mode for 2 days until it was clear that his campaign was being hurt. Then he went and charged Kerry for making accusations without knowing the facts, while avoiding any mention of his responsibility to know the facts himself.

There's all sorts of logical reasons why the explosives are gone, including military ones that Bush can't control. What he can control is what he tells us. By telling us nothing, he reveals his true motivation... getting re-elected over doing his job. When asked about this, the right response goes something like this.

"Yes, some explosives documented by the IAEA haven't been accounted for. We think it's because of (insert a reason). I'm very unhappy about this and I'm going to fix it. If someone failed to do their job, heads will roll."

There, is that so hard? Is that so much to ask? Real responsibility and real accountability. Instead, he would rather characterize everything as a liberal attack, despite the awful facts.