The Iraq thread 4

[denoir 0]

Is this a one-off event or the beginning of something bigger?

Quote[/b] ]The Army is investigating members of a Reserve unit in Iraq who refused to deliver a fuel shipment to a town north of Baghdad under conditions they considered unsafe, the Pentagon and relatives of the soldiers said Friday. Several soldiers called it a "suicide mission," relatives said.

Up to 19 members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company were detained at gunpoint for nearly two days after disobeying orders to drive trucks that they said had not been serviced and were not being escorted by armed vehicles to Taji, about 15 miles north of Baghdad, relatives said after speaking to some of the soldiers.

-- SF Chronicle

And, does anyone know if such soldiers would be provided with fireproof garments like those worn by race car drivers and pit crews?

Definitely a "one-off" event.

Suicide mission...? I doubt it.

Driving a truck full of gasoline in sunni triangle with clear american markings without any escorts could be quite dangerous.

good argument you proved my point no convoy rolls without escorts their complait was lack of armoure on the trucks  

nice try though

Read the article again:

Quote[/b] ]

Up to 19 members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company were detained at gunpoint for nearly two days after disobeying orders to drive trucks that they said had not been serviced  and were not being escorted by armed vehicles to Taji, about 15 miles north of Baghdad, relatives said after speaking to some of the soldiers.

And please use proper punctuation as it is otherwise difficult to decypher what you are writing.

[BoweryBaker 0]

I like how Secretary of State Colin Powell is handling public relations.  I think that the next thing they should do is give a speach at the indoctrine of the first president.  I think Bush himself should give that speach on why he attacked, and what good it did.  Not in person of course, unless he wants an RPG up his @$$.

[Akira 0]

you people talk alot about stuff you have no clue about! ! ! ! !

Oh boy. Another one that knows everything.

[Akira 0]

. Not in person of course, unless he wants an RPG up his @$$.

I would pay hard cash to see that!

[billybob2002 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....igation

Quote[/b] ]

Unit Commander in Iraq Relieved of Duty

Thu Oct 21, 6:33 PM ET   Middle East - AP

By TINI TRAN, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The company commander of a U.S. Army Reserve unit whose soldiers refused to deliver fuel along a dangerous route in Iraq (news - web sites) has been relieved of her duties, the U.S. military said Thursday.

The decision to relieve the commander of the 343rd Quartermaster Company came at her request and is effective immediately, according to a statement from the 13th Corps Support Command. It was authorized by Brig. Gen. James E. Chambers.

"The outgoing commander is not suspected of misconduct and this move has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of anyone involved," the statement said.

The commander, whose name is being withheld by the military to protect her privacy, will be reassigned to another position commensurate with her rank and experience, the U.S. military said.

Eighteen soldiers from the 343rd Quartermaster Company, based in Rock Hill, S.C., are under investigation for refusing to drive a fuel convoy from Tallil air base near Nasiriyah to Taji north of Baghdad.

The mission was later carried out by other soldiers from the unit, which has at least 120 soldiers, the military said.

The soldiers have told their families they balked at the mission last week because the vehicles were unarmored and in poor condition. They said complaints to their commander about concerns went unheeded.

A message left at the 343rd Quartermaster Company office in Rock Hill was not immediately returned Thursday.

Military convoys are often the target of insurgent attacks in Iraq. The unit delivers food, water and fuel on trucks in combat zones.

Chambers said Sunday an investigation is underway but maintains that it is "too early" to determine if any of the soldiers will undergo disciplinary action. The soldiers have since returned to duty.

The U.S. military has downplayed the incident, calling it an isolated incident not indicative of wider U.S. Army morale or maintenance problems.

However, Chambers has called for the 343rd to undergo a two-week "safety maintenance stand-down," during which it will conduct no further missions as the unit's vehicles are inspected. Chambers also said the Army is adding steel armor plating on unarmed vehicles and upgrading maintenance.

The father of one of the soldiers involved said the reservists refused to carry out the operation only after another military outpost rejected the fuel they were to deliver.

The soldiers had just returned from a 3 1/2-day journey to deliver the fuel to a city north of Baghdad, but military officials there found that the supplies were contaminated, said John Coates, who said he spoke to his son Thursday.

When the soldiers returned to their base with the fuel still in the tankers, their commander ordered the platoon to prepare for another transport mission, this time to a hotspot of guerrilla activity, Coates said.

"I guess he wanted somebody to take it," said Coates, whose son is 26-year-old Spc. Major Coates.

Coates, a water treatment specialist, contacted The Charlotte Observer for a report published Thursday to say his father was wrong when he said soldiers banded together in refusing the order.

 

"We did not form a group on the decision we made," Coates said. "Everyone made their own individual decision to do what we thought best."

If soldiers acted as a group in what the military considers a mutiny, they could receive a more severe punishment than if they acted individually.

Families of several of the soldiers have said the men would not have taken such drastic action without compelling reasons.

Another member of the unit, Spc. Reeves Williams, 19, of Maiden, N.C., told his mother, Genia White, that he helped carry out the delivery with eight other soldiers after initially refusing to do so.

"My son has strong convictions," White told the Hickory Daily Record for a story in Wednesday's editions. "For him to say no, there is something definitely, definitely wrong."

.......

Quote[/b] ]And please use proper punctuation as it is otherwise difficult to decypher what you are writing.

Now you are a member of the SAGPAK (Spelling And Grammar, Punctuation: Assault Kommandos)?

[bn880 5]

Quote[/b] ]And please use proper punctuation as it is otherwise difficult to decypher what you are writing.

Now you are a member of the SAGPAK (Spelling And Grammer, Punctuation: Assault Kommandos)?

Repeat after me: grammar

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Repeat after me: grammar

Only I can be Nitzenpicker!

[SGTKOPP 0]

you people talk alot about stuff you have no clue about! ! ! ! !

Oh boy. Another one that knows everything.

i live here i patrol those roads so i do know

[BoweryBaker 0]

Doesn't anyone see that Al Jazeera people who run that station need to be put under war trial? Honestly. They are helping to support terrorists by airing those tapes. If those tapes aren't aired, the kidnappings go in vain.

[DarkLight 0]

.  Not in person of course, unless he wants an RPG up his @$$.

I would pay hard cash to see that!

I'll donate all my money and i don't even want to see it!

[BoweryBaker 0]

Bowery's war against insurgency tip:

Another point I'd like to make is, you don't conduct security operations throughout a country where the men don't like you.  Throwing scattered targets at them on their turf makes things easy for them.  In essence we become the small pockets of resistance.  Those embassies and governing areas need to be set up as strongholds to lure the enemy to one position and then you set up a quick strike force nearby.  It's not like they can send a jet bomber in and blow up the place in one shot, so concentrate the enemy into your one position.  It's like setting out a cake and letting the ants come to eat, then spraying the bunch with bug killer.  One good shot.  That's why I've always wanted to go into the military, man.  I'm smart like that.  These generals with all their damned schooling don't know sh*t.  There they go scattering their troops throughout the hot zone to stay for the night conducting security keeping the peace.  What the hell do they think the insurgents are trying to attack, innocent old women?  NO!  They're trying to attack the soldiers.  There's no sense in playing peacekeeper, war is still going on.  Bush doesn't get it though.  What a dumbass.  Those insurgents are probably looking out their apartment building collecting intelligence on everything these soldiers do every day, with their little rpg and bomb rig on the kitchen table.  Then when its time to commit their act of martyrdom, they can't lose.  With troops still on the ground and Saddam out of power, Iraqi citizens probably get the idea that they're country is going to turn into a police state, and that what they see is how life is going to be forevre unless they change it.  That's what I'd think.  War is ovre and the troops didn't withdrawl?  Hell yeah I'd be pissed.  We wanted to give them freedom, they wanted the troops out of there after the war, no occupation they said, and the troops ain't leaving, then you get insurgency.  It would be much better to not withdrawl totally, but to withdrawl the troops to a marine security garrison at each embassy and sending the rest home.  This would ease the expansion in U.S. forces worldwide and make alot of boys happy to come home.  Bush isn't as smart as me though and the majority don't know how good of a president I'd make so we're F*CKED!

[kerosene 0]

Doesn't anyone see that Al Jazeera people who run that station need to be put under war trial?  Honestly.  They are helping to support terrorists by airing those tapes.  If those tapes aren't aired, the kidnappings go in vain.

They'd just put it up on the internet and regular networks would then pick up on it anyway. They want foreigners to stop going there to work or do humanitarian work, it's get reported anyway, affecting public opinion in the coalition countries is probably secondary to making the reconstruction impossible by depriving the coalition of skilled workers.

[billybob2002 0]

Did anybody see the History Channel presentation about the german "insurgency" after World War II? Very interesting. They talked about various incidents during the early post-war years. When a american soldier was killed in a mountain(?) town, the americans moved out and shelled the town and the next day moved back in. When a soviet soldier was killed, the soviets rounded up about 200 young men and executed them. The americans, british, french, and the soviets usually executed any insurgent they captured. The History channel actually showed a few executions (firing squad). I did not know that the british used the guillotine for some of the executions. Also, the show talked how the insurgents killing fellow germans who worked with the allies. Furthermore, it talked about the rounding up of people in to the camps. Also, the insurgency did not really pick up because of the death and the destruction of WWII. Also, Hitler's publicize death. It took a few years to win the hearts and minds of the west germans. The allies and the soviets were very tough on the insurgency. It took 2 or so years to crush the insurgency and 10 years....you know the rest.

Now at the very end, it talked about Iraq. It talked about how there was no de-baathing of people (like what happened to the nazis) and etc. Also, how Saddam being alive is helping some of the insurgents and the others who just do not like the occupation. They did say the Iraqi drive for democracy is not like what happened during the occupation of post-war west germany (i.e. mass protest against insurgent attacks). I think they hinted that one of the main reason there is a insurgency is that most of the country did not get damaged (i.e. infrastructure) and no mass death. My review may sound crappy but that show was interesting. I learned new things!!

[ralphwiggum 6]

speaking of insurgency...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/22/iraq.main/index.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- About $500 million in unaccounted funds from Saddam Hussein's former regime is being used to finance a growing insurgency in Iraq, a U.S. military intelligence official said Friday.

The official said that, and other key findings, are contained in an updated military intelligence assessment of the Iraq insurgency.

The top finding is that the United States believes about a half-billion dollars that once belonged to the former Iraqi government, along with funds from individuals and religious groups in Saudi Arabia, is being funneled through Syria and used to fund insurgents.

The official said other findings included:

The absence of any unifying elements between 50 widely dispersed cells around the country.

Evidence that criminals, as opposed to terrorists with an overt political motivation, have conducted about 80 percent of the recent attacks.

Evidence that elements of the Baath Party are active "and even coming together in their efforts to regain control, disrupt organized government and to fund insurgent activities."

An indication that capturing or killing Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would stop or slow insurgent activity significantly.

The report says there is a core maximum of about 12,000 insurgents across the country, including foreign fighters, criminals and disaffected Iraqis.

"Some foreign fighters are coming in, but more of concern is the numbers of Iraqis picking up the fight," the official said.

He added that the insurgency is growing, as show by the fact that the U.S.-led coalition appears to have captured or killed more insurgents than the original estimate -- 5,000 to 7,000 -- and there are still about 12,000 out there.

[ralphwiggum 6]

.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/22/us.armycall.up.ap/index.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than 800 former soldiers have failed to comply with Army orders to get back in uniform and report for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, the Army said Friday. That is more than one-third of the total who were told to report to a mobilization station by October 17.

Three weeks ago the number stood at 622 amid talk that any who refused to report for duty could be declared Absent Without Leave. Refusing to report for duty normally would lead to AWOL charges, but the Army is going out of its way to resolve these cases as quietly as possible.

In all, 4,166 members of the Individual Ready Reserve have received mobilization orders since July 6, of which 2,288 were to have reported by October 17. The others are to report in coming weeks and months.

Of those due to have reported by now, 1,445 have done so, but 843 have neither reported nor asked for a delay or exemption. That no-show rate of 37 percent is roughly in line with the one-third rate the Army had forecast when it began the mobilization to fill positions in regular and Reserve units. By comparison, the no-show total of 622 three weeks ago equated to a 35 percent rate.

Of the 843, the Army has had follow-up contact with 383 and is seeking to resolve their cases, according to figures made public Friday. For the 460 others, "We are still working to establish positive contact," the Army said. Some may not have received the mailed orders.

Members of the Individual Ready Reserve, or IRR, are rarely called to active duty. The last time was 1990, when nearly 20,000 were mobilized. IRR members are people who were honorably discharged after finishing their active-duty tours, usually four to six years, but remained in the IRR for the rest of the eight-year commitment they made when they joined the Army. They are separate from the reserve troops who are more routinely mobilized -- the National Guard and Reserve.

The Army anticipated, based on past experience, that about one-third of the IRR people it called up would be disqualified for medical or other reasons. The trend so far bears that out.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/22/investigation.families.ap/index.html

Quote[/b] ]CHARLOTTE, North Carolina (AP) -- A soldier from an Army Reserve unit whose members refused to deliver fuel along a dangerous route in Iraq says he and others did not act out of fear, as the soldier's father has said.

"We are not cowards," Spc. Major Coates told The Charlotte Observer for a report published Thursday. "The way that things come out, it makes us look like that. ... Our soldiers have run missions all over Iraq; we're never scared to go on a mission."

Coates was among 18 members of a platoon from the 343rd Quartermaster Company, based in Rock Hill, South Carolina, who last week refused to transport supplies from Tallil air base near Nasiriyah to Taji north of Baghdad.

He called the newspaper Wednesday, saying he wanted to correct statements made in interviews by his father, John Coates. The specialist said his father may have gotten details wrong because he was upset about what happened.

[SPQR 0]

Did anybody see the History Channel presentation about the german "insurgency" after World War II? Very interesting.

.....

Now at the very end, it talked about Iraq. It talked about how there was no de-baathing of people (like what happened to the nazis) and etc. Also, how Saddam being alive is helping some of the insurgents and the others who just do not like the occupation. They did say the Iraqi drive for democracy is not like what happened during the occupation of post-war west germany (i.e. mass protest against insurgent attacks). I think they hinted that one of the main reason there is a insurgency is that most of the country did not get damaged (i.e. infrastructure) and no mass death. My review may sound crappy but that show was interesting. I learned new things!!

Yeah you're right. Gerrman rebels used to attacks all the day long shermans and halftracks with panzerfausts, infantry with mortars. Even some of them driving bicycles were living bombs, killings dozens of germans and allied soldiers.

The Allied forces had to strengthen their positions in true strongholds, surrounded like cowboys by indians.

Quote[/b] ]It talked about how there was no de-baathing of people (like what happened to the nazis)

Do you know why ? In order to keep functionning a german administration, and because Soviet Union and Communism was later regarded as the new enemy.

Did you forget the islamic terrorists groups, the thug groups freeing by Sadam Hussein before the invasion ?

Wouldn't be easier to understand a world with one arch-enemy at a time ? Baath on Monday, thugs on Tuesday, AQ on wednesday and during holidays...

You'd also better talk about shiite insurgency ? Are they Sadam's minions ?

I thought I've read somewhere, long ago, than they were gazed and/or violented treated... and abandonned by US governement when the shiite rebellion rose...

Didn't they get free by Coalition troops with the fall of the baath regime ?

Thanks to God, TBA will save the world.

But...

Whick God ?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah you're right. Gerrman rebels used to attacks all the day long shermans and halftracks with panzerfausts, infantry with mortars. Even some of them driving bicycles were living bombs, killings dozens of germans and allied soldiers.

The Allied forces had to strengthen their positions in true strongholds, surrounded like cowboys by indians

WoW! Sarcasm. What the hell are you talking about? Seriously, read my post again.

Quote[/b] ]

Also, the insurgency did not really pick up because of the death and the destruction of WWII. Also, Hitler's publicize death.

....

Quote[/b] ]

Do you know why ? In order to keep functionning a german administration, and because Soviet Union and Communism was later regarded as the new enemy.

Re-read again. The nazis were "de-nazify" and the baath people were not "de-baath".

Quote[/b] ]

You'd also better talk about shiite insurgency ? Are they Sadam's minions ?

Quote[/b] ]Also, how Saddam being alive is helping some of the insurgents and the others who just do not like the occupation.

Quote[/b] ]Did you forget the islamic terrorists groups, the thug groups freeing by Sadam Hussein before the invasion ?

Erm, I was just talking about what was in the show.

Move along please...

[theavonlady 2]

Re-read again. The nazis were "de-nazify" and the baath people were not "de-baath".

There are/were debaathing training going on in Iraq. I'll try to find the link. Saw it a month or two ago.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]There are/were debaathing training going on in Iraq. I'll try to find the link. Saw it a month or two ago.

Dig!!!!!!!!

[SPQR 0]

Aren't you yourself talking non-sense when trying to compare thing that can't be compared.

For example :

Baath isn't Nazism. The first is a political secular apparatus controled by a dictator's family. Nazism is a fascist ideology, falsely claiming the purity of a "race" and its right to rule the world (same problem with Japan).

Now think about it :

Colin Powell, in front of the UN congress, showing a white-powder filled flask, claiming it's deathly toxin...

While Cato in 153 BC was claiming before the Senate, with a fig in hand "Delenda est Carthago".

Simplying comprhension won't simply problems.

Quote[/b] ]Move along please...

It's not because I answered your post that I didn't read others.

It's not because i'm french that I'll flee before your eyebrow's rising.

France suffered from islamic terrorism far before you even know about it's existence. We didn't attacks foreign countries for that reason.

The attacks of Septembre the 11th were a terrible moment, something that would change the world. It was obvious.

Destroying the Talibans was a good target, the one that has to be destroyed. the Bush Administration was then right. Afghanistan was a country to be rebuild... seriously. Strategically and politically.

Currently, thanks to TBA and its "far-sighting" skills, attacking Iraq not only desserved the USA but all the Occident. It gives strong arguments for AQ and others to recruit in mass.

The list of stupid sthings not to be done is far too long and already presented in the previous pages of this topic.

I'm really happy to live in a "safer" world" now, but don't forget to lock and load your gun, in case a terrorist knocks at your door.

What a mess ! Who'll clean it up now ? I'm afraid all this blood spilling won't be forget so easily, even if TBA was warned.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Aren't you yourself talking non-sense when trying to compare thing that can't be compared.

I was posting what was said on the show. The show was mostly about Germany and the last 10 mins was about Iraq. Iraq part seem rushed.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]I learned new things!!

Quote[/b] ]Erm, I was just talking about what was in the show.

Move along please...

Well you pretty much seem that you think that Iraq and post-war Germany are in a similiar situation while clearly the situation over there is more chaotic times 10 at least. You shouldn't just walk in, rave about a documentary which clearly tries to link two events on flimsy basis then just declare debate over.

Oh and the 10 minutes of rushed part could easily have handled occupation of France by Nazi-Germany, severity of resistance is at about the same level, if not level of Russian front. LOL.

[Gollum1 0]

'Bodies of 51 Iraqi soldiers found'

Quote[/b] ]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A group of at least 51 soldiers of the New Iraq Army were ambushed and killed while on their way home after graduating from training, Iraqi police officials said.

The soldiers appeared to have been forced to lie face down on the ground and then were shot dead at close range, Diyala province police chief Major General Waleed Khalid Abdul Salam told CNN.

They were surprised and captured Saturday on a road near the Iranian border, about 80 miles (130 km) east of Baghdad, he said.

The ambush happened between 3 and 5 p.m. Saturday and the bodies were found in groups of 12 and 13 around midnight, Maj. Gen. Salam said.

The soldiers, who were found with their army IDs, had just graduated from training, he said.

They were riding in three minibuses and had departed from the training camp in Kirkush, about 90 km (55 miles) northeast of Baghdad, Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman Col. Adnan Abdul Rahman said.

They were headed toward their homes in the southern provinces, he said.

edit: Zarqawi's group claims responsibility.

[ozanzac 0]

Insignificant compared to everything else going on in Iraq, but big news down here, none the less.

Quote[/b] ] Zarqawi claims Aussie attack

October 26, 2004

http://www.news.com.au/common....00.html

THE group led by Iraq's most wanted terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, says it was behind the convoy bombing in Baghdad yesterday that injured three Australian soldiers.

Three Iraqi bystanders were killed and 16 other people were injured in the first direct attack on Australian forces in the strife-torn country.

The Army said there was "no loss of capability" to the Baghdad detachment and that soldiers there would still be able to carry out their mission of protecting Australian diplomats and staff.

One Australian soldier needed surgery on his face, while two others were treated for minor injuries and are returning to work.

There are conflicting reports from US officials and witnesses suggesting either a suicide car bomb or a remote controlled roadside device was used in the attack.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq made the claim of responsibility in a statement on an Islamist website. Its authenticity was impossible to verify.

One of our lions from the martyrs brigades this morning (yesterday AEST) attacked an Australian convoy that wanted to enter the Green Zone in the Karrada district," it said.

Defence Minister Robert Hill, who said he suspected Australian forces had not been specifically targeted in the attack, ruled out reducing the presence of Australian light armored vehicles that provide security for Australian diplomats in Iraq streets.

The commander of Australian forces in the Middle East, Brigadier Peter Hutchinson, said he had visited the most seriously injured soldier, who underwent surgery to his face.

"He was in good spirits and ... had a bit of a joke with us," Hutchinson told the Nine Network this morning.

[billybob2002 0]

And the media/Kerry rushes to conclusion, again....

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

Quote[/b] ]

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON OCT 25 2004 22:45:05 ET XXXXX

NBCNEWS: HUGE CACHE OF EXPLOSIVES VANISHED FROM SITE IN IRAQ -- AT LEAST 18 MONTHS AGO -- BEFORE TROOPS ARRIVED

The NYTIMES urgently reported on Monday in an apprent October Surprise: The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives are now missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

Jumping on the TIMES exclusive, Dem presidential candidate John Kerry blasted the Bush administration for its failure to "guard those stockpiles."

"This is one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the great blunders of this administration," Kerry said.

In an election week rush:

**ABCNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 4 Times

**CBSNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 7 Times

**MSNBC Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 37 Times

**CNN Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 50 Times

But tonight, NBCNEWS reported: 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 inform readers how the cache had been missing for 18 months -- and was reportedly missing when troops first 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.

Dem vp hopeful John Edwards blasted Bush for not securing the explosives: "It is reckless and irresponsible to fail to protect and safeguard one of the largest weapons sites in the country. And by either ignoring these mistakes or being clueless about them, George Bush has failed. He has failed as our commander in chief; he has failed as president."

A senior Bush official e-mailed DRUDGE late Monday: "Let me get this straight, are Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards now saying we did not go into Iraq soon enough? We should have invaded and liberated Iraq sooner?"

Top Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart fired back Monday night: "In a shameless attempt to cover up its failure to secure 380 tons of highly explosive material in Iraq, the White House is desperately flailing in an effort to escape blame. Instead of distorting John Kerry’s words, the Bush campaign is now falsely and deliberately twisting the reports of journalists. It is the latest pathetic excuse from an administration that never admits a mistake, no matter how disastrous."

Developing...

         

Edit: Oh, if everybody post something from moore's site, read the last quote in my sig...