Quote:
|
it must be remembered that Bush bears direct responsibility for this fiasco.
|
Keep that in mind that this person is already throwing the entire blaim on Bush and not Bush's administration or anyone else besides Bush. This is a good indicator of bias right off the bat.
Quote:
|
Because it was the Bush Administration that kept the IAEA from reentering Iraq after the invasion to inventory the stockpiles and resume looking for WMDs, preferring instead to handpick the leaders of the Iraq Survey Group, first led by David Kay, and then led by Charles Duelfer, so that a friendly face was in charge. Now it turns out that not only did their handpicked guys not find the WMD stockpiles, but Bush’s refusal to let the IAEA back into Iraq quickly to verify the disposition of these high explosives, something the IAEA was uniquely qualified to do due to their knowledge of where these explosives were, significantly contributed to the violence and deaths of our troops since the occupation began.
|
Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. They weren't allowing into Iraq because there was a war going on. Now, I'm not going to get too much into this but I will try to give a little more info on this to people.
The high explosives referred to as missing were missing before the US had toppled Saddam's regime in Baghdad. The day after was the beginnning of searches of the
thousands of different stockpiles of weapons that were all over Iraq. I also believe that all these high explosives were sealed and marked so the IAEA could know where they were and what they were. Since the army was being responcible and trying to secure as much as possible (which I think they did), they were going through bunkers looking for all the high explosives. They knew they were missing right away, the story got published. Voila.
So, I would like someone to explain again how Bush was supposed to stop looting from occuring before he had control of Baghdad while the war was going on. Please, someone enlighten me.
What really cooks my noodle about this whole story is the fact that if you read the entire story from the NY Times,
they never specifically mention a time frame from when this happened. In other words, they are trying to fabricate this 18 month old story into some brand new story of further chaos in Iraq and more incompetance on behalf of Bush. Obvious liberal bias on behalf of NY Times.
I don't know how you people can say that Fox is so much worse...