Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
LostInSpace

Questions for Kerry

Recommended Posts

Source:Politicalcrossfire.com

quote:

George Will is an extremely gifted writer and all should aspire to his standard (especially the blow hard like Ann Coulter or Al Franken).

Here's an article that rasies alot of pertinent questions for Kerry, questions he would have a hard time explaining:

WASHINGTON -- Mr. Kerry, in your convention speech you threw caution to the wind and endorsed what you called ``one of the oldest Commandments: `Honor thy father and thy mother.''' Oldest? Were they not all published together?

Here are some other questions:

You invoke the Commandment to explain why you ``will not cut'' Social Security benefits. Does that include raising the retirement age, which Congress set at 65 in 1935, when the life expectancy of an American male was 62?

Regarding military action, your platform says ``we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake.'' But the platform's preceding paragraph denounces President Bush's ``doctrine of unilateral pre-emption.'' If unilateralism is wrong, are you not committed to some sort of ``green light from abroad''?

Are you glad that in 1981 Israel set back Iraq's nuclear weapons program with a unilateral pre-emptive attack on the reactor near Baghdad?

Your platform says: ``A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk.'' But Iran's radical Islamist regime is undeterred by diplomatic hand-wringing about its acquisition of nuclear weapons, which may be imminent. Is pre-emptive military action against Iran feasible, or are its nuclear facilities too dispersed and hardened? What would you do other than accept Iran as a nuclear power?

Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian says, ``We have reached an internal consensus that insists on Taiwan being an independent sovereign country.'' Beijing's military chief recently said Taiwan will be reunified with the mainland by 2020, the first reunification deadline ever set. On an island physically similar to Taiwan, Beijing recently simulated an invasion. Would you respond with force -- unilaterally, if necessary -- to defend Taiwan?

The Clinton years were, you say, glorious because ``we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed.'' Did not the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, followed by the attacks on the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and the East African embassies mean we were at war but were uncomprehending? Have not scores of thousands of young Americans been deployed, ashore and on ships, since 1942?

You supported humanitarian military interventions in Somalia, the Balkans and Haiti. Would you intervene militarily to stop the accelerating genocide in Sudan?

You say, ``I stood up and fought against Richard Nixon's war in Vietnam.'' Nixon's war? Did it start after John Kennedy put U.S. combat troops there, and after Lyndon Johnson increased the number to 500,000?

The easily distressed abortion rights groups were distressed when you said that your faith teaches you what elementary biology teaches everyone: life begins at conception. But you say personhood does not. Fine. When does it? What are its defining attributes? Does, say, an elderly person with dementia have it, and hence a right to life?

You oppose, on federalism grounds, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. You say marriage law is traditionally a state responsibility. But so was abortion law for the Republic's first 197 years, until 1973. What is the difference?

When the Pope said Catholic legislators have a duty to oppose gay marriage, you said he had ``crossed the line'' because ``it is important not to have the Church instructing politicians.'' Have you felt that way even when the Church has instructed politicians take liberal positions regarding economic justice, race and other matters?

Your platform says, ``The price of gas is at an all-time high.'' But it isn't as measured in constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, or as a portion of Americans' purchasing power. Do you have some other way of justifying the platform's claim?

You have often said -- e.g., in Algona, Iowa, last year, when your campaign was impoverished -- that ``there's too much money loose in the American political system.'' Now your campaign is awash with money. So are the 527 groups that are supporting your campaign -- but of course without even a smidgen of ``coordination'' with it, because that would be a crime under the new campaign finance law. Do you advocate new laws to discourage the kind of people who are choosing to participate in politics through financial contributions on your behalf?

You and other supporters of increased government regulation of political spending say this does not abridge freedom of speech. What does most of your spending pay for?

Throwing caution to the wind, your platform insists that ``small towns are at the heart of America.'' Your sense of America's small-town heartbeat comes from where -- Sun Valley?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Nope, not one response.

These guys know that Kerry's a loser, but that isn't why they are voting for him.

They are voting for Kerry, because he's not Bush.

Doesn't matter that he's gonna hand out national security over to the UN.

Doesn't matter that he's gonna wage a more sensitive war on terror, which means REACTIVE, in other words, they attack us and kill civilians, then we will attack them, and waste a million dollar missile on a tent to hit a camel in the butt.

It does not matter that Kerry will bring the entire economy to a standstill, he's NOT Bush.

Bush is the Antichrist, even though they have NO idea why they feel that way.

It's just the way it is....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I have nothing to say about what George Will says. These are rhetorical questions. If this was a court of law he would have been sanctioned for leading the witness. He is ANSWERING every question he has asked. Get it? Great. It is pointless to answer unless I am debating George Will. Is he here? This is an editorial.

George Bush is not the antichrist he is an unabashed LIAR. When you send a nation to war on lies that pisses me off. He is not a Republican, he spends money without concern for how it will be paid back, he has spread our military thin, he has made soldiers indentured servants (DOD's Stop Loss Rule). He has granted sovereignty to NOBODY. He has destroyed the progress of TIME. What I mean by this is that Iran and Iraq killed off much of their older populace through war. Iran's majority population is 30 and under, they like the jeans and the music and Iran has had trouble maintaining fanaticism in the name of religion. WE HAVE REMINDED THEM WHY THEIR PARENTS HATED US. Our President is an imbecile. If we wanted Saddam dead we could have killed him, without war. He was contained. NO WMDs, nothing... just a bunch of EXCUSES and you guys buy it.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT. It isn't just ABB (although I have no choices beyond Kerry or Bush) it is about REMOVING A DANGEROUS AND RECKLESS INDIVIDUAL FROM THE PRESIDENCY. It is about making the checks and balances of government relevant again. Lord knows that Kerry will be checked by this Republican Congress and for this I will be HAPPY.

Hope this clears it all up for you.

How would George Bush answer these charges gents? Fact is HE WOULDN'T BECAUSE HE COULDN'T. How would you guys answer them? The floor is yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You keep saying that old liberal crap about Bush lied, when in fact you KNOW he did not.

Bush did NOT lie, so stop with the nonsense about it already.

He did not lie about WMD's, He did not lie about the Danger that Saddam posed to the US via hjis support of terrorism, Bush told us everything up front. He let us know what the intelligence said and why he was doing what he was doing.

He did NOT lie.

This is a liberal lie that I for one am getting tired of.

If you say it a lie enough times it does NOT become the truth, sorry Takvah, Bush did NOT lie, whether you like it or not, he has done NOTHING to the constitution, whether you care to admit it or not, although this is war, and we should probably do what we had to do during WWII, civil rights take a little holiday while we deal with the people who are trying to kill us. Or do they not exist either?

Kerry has been caught in lies, Cambodia, Vietnam, Purple Hearts, Bronze Stars, Silver Stars, Vice Chairman of the intelligence Committee?

THe man lies incessantly to make himself seem more heroic and bigger then he is.

The man is incapable of telling the truth, yet you call Bush a liar? ROFLMAO!!!

Man, sometimes you guys really don't know what is going on. Just off in your lala land, yelling about how Bush is taking your rights away.

Well, Roosevelt took your rights away too, but gave them after the war was won. Perhaps that is what we need to do in order to get you guys back into the real world.

Bush hasn't done that, nor has he asked for that, yet you guys are freaking as if he has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll make this easy for you. What did Bush say that Saddam had that ended up being found or proved? What panned out for this guy? The entire Administration made the rounds promising us all kinds of horrific finds. Where are they? Bush said that Saddam was a threat, explain how. That's all I'm asking. What that Bush said was a justification for war actually proved to be there? I've been asking this question of you to the point of being blue in the face and I get a lot of emotional answers about how he was a threat. WELL I AM ASKING YOU AGAIN. How?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL...Bush didnt say anything!!....We all imagined it. The truth is....we are in the twilight zone!!!

If you dont believe me, just ask Jaguar!!

Bereuter calls war 'a mistake': http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/18/...iraq/index.html

SEE?...Bereuter, had to retire, before, he spoke up....I guess that means, he is in the twilight zone too....and this is ALL his imagination

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

He did not lie about WMD's, He did not lie about the Danger that Saddam posed to the US via hjis support of terrorism, Bush told us everything up front. He let us know what the intelligence said and why he was doing what he was doing.

They seem to keep forgetting that Kerry said the same thing over and over that Saddam was a threat long before Powell went before the U.N. with some evidence of his danger even while clinton was in office. His only dissagreement with Bush on war was the way he went about it. Kerry wanted everyone on the planet to join the war and would have balked at attacking Saddam if he didn't get the green light even from the pygmy tribe of africa.

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

If this was a court of law he would have been sanctioned for leading the witness. He is ANSWERING every question he has asked.

Is there a reason Kerry should be in court to answer these questions? Anyway, where do you see George Will answering his own question. George Will re-states Kerry's stance that Kerry voiced in his convention speech and other speeches and then askes the question for Kerry. Why don't you guys help Kerry out and try to answer the questions I have posted instead of degenerating into the usual Bush hate mongering. Look at the title of this thread "Questions for Kerry" not "Questions for Bush". Oh yeah, forgot that liberals can't have a single track discussion or argument without clouding the issue up with other issues to distract everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

His only dissagreement with Bush on war was the way he went about it. Kerry wanted everyone on the planet to join the war and would have balked at attacking Saddam if he didn't get the green light even from the pygmy tribe of africa.

Why do you people feel that it is necessary to fabricate things? I remember nothing, concerning any PYGMY tribes of Africa. NOT even in the REPUBLICAN's attack machine's propaghanda.

quote:

Why don't you guys help Kerry out and try to answer the questions I have posted instead of degenerating into the usual Bush hate mongering.

Because: 1). YOUR accusations, are FALSE, and without any foundation? 2). I am not kerry, and will not fabricate false answers, to refute false accusations.

And as far as NAMING the thread questions for KERRY, just to stop anyone from countering your "BUSH ACCUSATIONS"....get REAL.

ANY accusation, coming from the "BUSH PROPAGHANDA MACHINE", is OPEN to attack..."REGARDLESS of the title of the thread!!"

And...you keep talking about HATE MONGERING!!! LOL. Kerry has done NOTHING, to require condemnation. where as BUSH, has done NOTHING but insult EVERY AMERICAN's intelligence....if nothing more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by street:

Why do you people feel that it is necessary to fabricate things? I remember nothing, concerning any PYGMY tribes of Africa. NOT even in the REPUBLICAN's attack machine's propaghanda.


Again proving my point that you guys don't know when you are reading sarcasm or jokes even when they bite you in the glutious maximus.

quote:

YOUR accusations, are FALSE, and without any foundation? 2). I am not kerry, and will not fabricate false answers, to refute false accusations.

Explain this. How are the accusations false. Just stating that they are false doesn't make them false. You are not Kerry is a good thing and that you will not fabricate false answers as Kerry would is another good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you SURE, your not guilty of just,"HATE MONGERING" against KERRY?

quote:

You are not Kerry is a good thing and that you will not fabricate false answers as Kerry would is another good thing.


NO LIE, ever concieved, could compare, to the BUSH LIES (or BUSH Ignorance).

I call them lies. If you want to say, he was just IGNORANT!, fine by me. Either way, He needs a BOOT, from GOVERNMENT.....PERIOD!!

though, that would not be fair. IGNORANCE is: " lack of knowledge". What Bush, fed to the people, was FALSE presentatiion of KNOWLEDGE. NO...Those, were DEFINATELY LIES!!!

Now, WHO does that leave?.....hummmm...Looks like, ANYONE with an I.Q. above Bush's 60, will do.......!!

quote:

Well, Roosevelt took your rights away too, but gave them after the war was won. Perhaps that is what we need to do in order to get you guys back into the real world.

LOL!! Boy, you AND bush would LIKE nothing better. Now, tell me again Jaquar, that you are NOT a totalitarian, and a communist.!! RULE BY FORCE..and heil BUSH!!!

[ 08-19-2004, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can keep it on a one track conversation LIS. George Will and you through the quoting of the man are saying that Kerry speaks from both sides of his mouth. IMAGINE THAT, a politician being political. OH MY GOD.

I'm not going to argue it.

Now you on the other hand say that Bush is not a liar. SO, why don't you focus in on what I said and tell me how the man is NOT a liar. I'm not going to defend Kerry's lack of cohesion in his statements. However, I am not going to tolerate Bush's whacko agenda just because I have an R after my name either. Kerry being a politician will NEVER be as scary to me as Bush being a cowboy and instigating war against a country we had no business invading.

Bush has also been being a politician lately, suddenly changing his stance on the importation of drugs and that business about considering a consumption/flat tax. The difference is 1000 Americans are dead and 150,000 others are slow roasting in the Iraqi desert because of a crazy scheme to rob the treasury and finish dad's war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Terran Marine:

Jaguar I have a question for you. If Saddam had all those WMDs why didn't he use them when we invaded Iraq. Hmm?

Maybe he figured that since he had no chance of beating the U.S., instead of using them and showing to the world that the U.S was correct, he hid them, moved them to other countries, or both. That way when the U.S. did invade, we wouldn't find anything and we would look foolish and uncredible to the rest of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Matchoo:

quote:

Originally posted by Terran Marine:

Jaguar I have a question for you. If Saddam had all those WMDs why didn't he use them when we invaded Iraq. Hmm?

Maybe he figured that since he had no chance of beating the U.S., instead of using them and showing to the world that the U.S was correct, he hid them, moved them to other countries, or both. That way when the U.S. did invade, we wouldn't find anything and we would look foolish and uncredible to the rest of the world.


Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

The WMD's are in Syria, and some were taken into Jordan for a major attack that was thwarted by the Jordanian authorities.

And the order for the use of WMD's was indeed given, the Iraqi Generals that had those WMD's chose to toss them in the rivers instead, we have just finished cleaning up that little toxic mess, but you didn't hear a thing about that in mainstream press now did ya?

The generals knew that if those WMD's were used that we would retaliate with Nuclear weapons, and they were not ready to die for Saddam, nor kill Millions of their fellow countrymen for Saddam either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight. Americans were involved in cleaning up a major dumping of toxic chemicals into rivers around Baghdad? So, let me see, we have a President that never mentioned that. An Administration that never mentioned it. The Pentagon that never mentioned it. Yet they are under fire (not nearly enough) for using depleted uranium all over Iraq and causing a major environmental mess there that is years from being truly realized.

OK this is some good stuff. Honestly, I wish it was truth. I wish I as an American could stand up and say, "see he had them you German bastards," or "we likely saved your ass again France," but I can't. Instead I have to sit here and realize that MY PRESIDENT, the guy I voted for... lied and lied and lied.

I loved getting my call from the Republicans tonight. "Sir, would you say that you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is directing this nation."

"I highly disapprove."

Stunned silence.

"Thank you and have a blessed evening sir."

A BLESSED EVENING?! This is the kind of stuff about my party that is driving me nuts. Now, I'm sure Jeb is scrambling to get me on a felons list. There will be hell to pay if I am denied my right as an American to vote. My vote counts, unlike some of you guys that are in states where you'll be practicing the exercise but watching Kerry claim victory. *snickers*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I don't know Takvah, Kerry should be taking it to the bank in California, he should be ahead by at least 10 points, but it's 49 to 46 percent, and the spread is weakening against Kerry.

Here in Washington it's 51 to 43, but the margin is 4.5%, and Kerry is slowly losing his momentum.

The Republicans have NOT had their convention yet, so those mnumbers are only going to go up for Bush, and Kerry is about to have a meltdown on National Television, I call it mid Seaptember sometime.

The convention is gonna raise Bushes number by at least 10 points, especially with the leftists trying to disrupt it. That is going to backfire on the Democrats BIG time.

Don't get too cocky. because your candidate is unstable, and is gonna blow a gasket. The pressure is getting too intense for him, and it's only gonna get tenser.

The swiftboats release a new add tomorrow, and it is gonna be scathing.

And the fact that Kerry is not signing his 180 is finally getting some attention.

The Democrats are gonna have to turn this around or pull another Toracellis if they are gonna win this, because Kerry is a loser candidate.

I see Electoral collegs, Bush carrying at least 40 states, and winning in a landslide.

Events are sliding toward Bush, and he has barely gotten started campaigning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

The convention is gonna raise Bushes number by at least 10 points, especially with the leftists trying to disrupt it.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08...y.ny.police.jpg

It makes me wonder, why our president is SO AFRAID of his own country's population.....Hummmm. That, in itself, should reveal, how unfit, Bush is. He has clearly demonstrated, his fear has him in over his head, through his OVER REACTION, to the "so called" IRAQ THREAT!!

I think you will soon see, HIS over reaction to the so called "LEFTEST THREAT", also....VERY apparant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Poor Street, you haven't seen the plans of most of the leftist groups coming to New York, they don't want to just demonstrate, they want to disrupt the convention.

Therefore they are criminals and will be treated as such.

It is the New York city polices responsibility to make sure that any criminals are dealt with immediatley and quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Therefore they are criminals and will be treated as such.


WHO JAG? The TERRORIST Left?..hahaha

ANYONE against Bush, is NOW a "Criminal?" And THEY intend to DISRUPT?

WOW, maybe we should just go ahead, and start a civil war. TO be dubbed a CRIMINAL, by your own president,(and his followers) is almost as bad as saying your NOT welcome, in this country. WOULDNT you say?. After all, we put CRIMINALS in prisons..for a slave WORK FORCE...or don't we?

SHOCK TREATMENTS!!.....yep!, thats probably what it would take, to get you back to reality...pooor Jag!!

The only CRIMINALS, will be the ones HIDING behind the police.... disallowing FREEDOM to DEMONSTRATE. Anyone actually REMEMBER "KENT STATE"? I DO!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

They can demonstrate ALL they want Street, we still have the first amendment, but the first one that tries to disrupt the convention is a criminal.

Republicans have the first amendment right of free speech as well, or don't you remember that?

That's right, since the Democrats allowed a LITTLE tiny free speech zone, the Republicans had better allow their convention to be disrupted, destroyed and otherwise made useless, or their a bunch of fascist pigs, right?

You little dude need to get a grip on reality.

Your hatred is destroying your critical thinking skills, but that has been obvious for a quite a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm back from a week-long vacation without access to a computer.

quote:

And the order for the use of WMD's was indeed given, the Iraqi Generals that had those WMD's chose to toss them in the rivers instead, we have just finished cleaning up that little toxic mess, but you didn't hear a thing about that in mainstream press now did ya?

I don't know about the clean-up, but the initial reports of the poisoning of the river was a one-day news story by MSNBC that was picked up by several foreign media outlets, and then it disappeared from view. The original reporter was Dr. Bob Arnot.

From Sky News, quoting MSNBC, EUPHRATES 'POISONED', April 4, 2003:

quote:

EUPHRATES 'POISONED'

US Marines found cyanide and mustard agents in high concentrations in the Euphrates River near Nassiriya in Iraq, television network MSNBC has reported.

The network said a briefing from Marine officials was its source for the information.

The agents were found during routine tests conducted to ensure the water being used is safe, MSNBC said.

Neither Centcom officials in Qatar nor US military officials in Iraq have confirmed the MSNBC report.

Mustard gas produces painful, long-lasting blisters and often leads to blindness, while cyanide kills by preventing blood from transporting oxygen.

From USA Today, Marines reportedly find cyanide, mustard agents in Euphrates, also April 4, 2003:

quote:

Marines reportedly find cyanide, mustard agents in Euphrates

From staff and wire reports

Marine units testing drinking water found cyanide and mustard agents in the Euphrates River, MSNBC reported, as concerns mounted that Iraq would resort to chemical weapons as coalition troops closed on Baghdad.

Earlier, advancing U.S. troops found thousands of boxes of suspicious white powder, nerve agent antidote and Arabic documents on how to engage in chemical warfare at an industrial complex south of Baghdad. But a senior U.S. official familiar with initial testing said the materials were believed to be explosives.

Concerns over the use of chemical weapons spiked as MSNBC reported that Marines testing drinking water from the Euphrates River near Nasiriyah found "large concentrations" of cyanide and mustard agents. The network said Marine commanders believed it was a deliberate attempt to poison coalition troops.

There was no immediate confirmation of the report from Central Command.

At the Latifiyah industrial complex 25 miles south, troops had found thousands of 2-inch by 5-inch boxes, each containing three vials of white powder, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in chemical warfare, said Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rd Infantry Division.

He also said they discovered atropine, used to counter the effects of nerve agents, and 2-Pam chloride, which is used in combination with atropine in case of chemical attack. "It is clearly a suspicious site," Peabody said.

But a senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the material was under further study. The site is enormous and U.S. troops are still investigating it for potential weapons of mass destruction, the official said.

"Initial reports are that the material is probably just explosives, but we're still going through the place," the official said.

The facility had been identified by the International Atomic Energy Agency as a suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons site. U.N. inspectors visited the plant at least a dozen times, including as recently as Feb. 18.

The facility is part of a larger complex known as the Latifiyah Explosives and Ammunition Plant al Qa Qaa. During the 1991 Gulf War, U.S. jets bombed the plant.

Troops also discovered what they believe is a training center for nuclear, chemical and biological warfare in Iraq's western desert, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said Friday.

One bottle found at the site was labeled "tabun" ÔÇö a nerve agent that the U.S. government says may have been used during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. The soldiers found only a small amount of the chemical, indicating the site was meant for training, not storing or deploying chemical weapons, Brooks said.

"In that particular site, we believe that was the only sample," Brooks said. "That's why we believe it was a training site. Our conclusion is that this was not a (weapons of mass destruction) site ... it proved to be far less than that."

Photos of the site showed shelves of brown bottles with yellow labels. Brooks said troops did not understand some of the labels and were collecting the bottles for examination by experts.

On April 1, Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, in a statement on Iraqi television, repeated Baghdad's position that it had no weapons of mass destruction. Referring to reports that gas masks and other chemical gear had been found elsewhere in the country, he said the coalition might plant weapons of mass destruction to implicate Iraq.

"Let me say one more time that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction," he said.

"The aggressors may themselves intend to bring those materials to plant them here and say those are weapons of mass destruction," he said.

From the Telegraph UK, April 6, 2003, Deadly chemicals are found dumped in river :

quote:

Deadly chemicals are found dumped in river

By David Harrison in Nasiriyah

(Filed: 06/04/2003)

Mustard gas and cyanide have been found in river water in the Iraqi city of Nasiriyah, coalition forces said yesterday.

The poisonous substances are believed to have been dumped in the Euphrates either by Iraqi soldiers fleeing from American troops or local factories that produced weapons of mass destruction.

A spokesman for the United States marines, based just outside the city, described the quantities of chemical agents found as "significant" and claimed that it was further evidence that Saddam Hussein has produced weapons of mass destruction.

He said yesterday: "I think this discovery shows what kind of guy is running this country.

"This stuff is just dumped in the Euphrates without any concern for the many people who drink and wash with water from the river."

The poisons were discovered by the marines' scientists who were testing the quality of water taken from the Euphrates before purifying it and distributing it to the residents of Nasiriyah, a city of 250,000 people.

It follows the discovery of hundreds of gas masks and chemical warfare suits at a military base near the city.

Weapons found at the site included rocket launchers, machine-guns and rifles, bayonets and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

Yesterday the site was deserted except for a few American soldiers examining the contents of the armoury, picking their way carefully through grenades and a huge amount of other explosives packed in boxes or strewn in and around the storerooms.

Among the boxes were papers with details of Iraqi soldiers, each with a small black-and-white passport photograph attached. There were also dozens of unused black berets of the sort worn frequently by Saddam Hussein.

The marines returned to the Euphrates in Nasiriyah yesterday to distribute purified water to hundreds of Iraqis who formed an orderly queue on the river bank.

Under the watchful gaze of heavily armed troops, the water was taken directly from the river, cleaned and then piped into buckets and jerry cans of all shapes and sizes.

Most residents were pleased that water was being provided, although some pointed out that the water problem only arose at the beginning of the war when American aircraft destroyed the city's treatment plant.

Abdul Ahmed, 33, said: "We are grateful for their help but we only have this problem because of the American bombings."

He added: "Before that we had water from the taps in our houses so we are still worse off than we were before the start of the war."

Here's a CNN transcript of their initial reporting on April 4, 2003, CNN LIVE ON LOCATION:

quote:

CNN LIVE ON LOCATION

Interview With Alex Perry

Aired April 4, 2003 - 12:48 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: On the phone with us right now is Alex Perry of "TIME" magazine. He's got some new information on the cyanide that was reportedly discovered in the Euphrates river. Alex, tell us what you're hearing and what you're seeing.

ALEX PERRY, TIME MAGAZINE: Well, just that there was a brief intel report; these things are sent out, you know, almost 24 hours (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in the region. And there was an intel report that persons unknown have been spotted pouring cyanide into the water supply in Baghdad. There was no sort of further details on that of who the people have been and what purpose this was serving. But, yes, that has been mentioned and it is something that American forces here are working on.

BLITZER: The Euphrates river, Alex, is a long river. Do they know precisely where this cyanide or other poison was being dumped into the river?

PERRY: It was said to be in the city's center itself. Presumably that would then flow south toward American forces. But, I mean, one has to say it would be a fairly unguided attack, if that was intended to sort of hit American forces, apart from (UNINTELLIGIBLE) they are not getting in the river. They've constructed their own bridges over it. It seems -- it was very sort of odd intelligence report. And I'm not sure how much stock people are putting in it at the moment.

BLITZER: As far as you know, Alex, this intelligence report -- and you know there are intelligence reports and there are other intelligence reports. Some are pretty vague. Some are just sort of hearsay. Some are really, really hard and definitive. This one sounds like it's a little weak, this intelligence report. It sort of almost sounds like a potential warning out there that it might be going on. But the U.S. would need a lot more hard evidence. Is that what you're picking up?

PERRY: Yes. To me, I mean, I have asked around. And to me, you know, what I was told was it was simply something that U.S. intelligence sources, some eyewitnesses had seen. And they reported it because it sounded so serious. It's one of those thins that gets flagged and distributed widely. Again, you know, the problem with some sort of, I guess you would call it an attack like this, or a plan like this, is it's very difficult to get further confirmation. This is -- you pour a barrel of cyanide into the river. It only takes 15 seconds and then no one else sees it. It's a very odd one, it's a very difficult one for people to try and confirm. But it is out there as a warning to all U.S. forces. So they are taking it (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

BLITZER: Well, obviously it's very ominous, it's very disturbing and it should get a lot of distribution, but obviously they also have to make sure that it's a legitimate fear, it's a legitimate threat that is out there. Alex, while I have you, there have been some reports, I think you're familiar with them, of Iraqis throwing themselves in front of advancing U.S. tanks and other armored vehicles. What, if anything, do you know about this?

PERRY: Yes, certainly, I think Iraqi attacks are forming a bit of a pattern. One lieutenant colonel I was talking to today told me that generally in the evening between 6:00 and 10:00, there will be sort of probing attacks on U.S. forces, generally surrounding towns like Karbala, where I am, or Najaf and so on. And more than once they've had these sort of suicide attacks. Last night in Karbala, a man was spotted running toward a tank. Seemed to be carrying some sort of weapon. Warning shots were fired over his head. He didn't stop. And so he was shot, and when he was shot, he exploded. So he was obviously strapped to his body he was carrying a large amount of explosives designed to cripple an Abrams tank. This is the sort of pattern that we are seeing in these sort of attacks. Lone sort of suicide attacks.

BLITZER: All right, Alex Perry with "TIME" magazine. He's one of the embedded journalists with the U.S. forces not far from Karbala in central Iraq. Alex, thanks very much for that report. We'll get back in touch with you or hopefully you'll get back in touch with us very, very soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Jaguar said in the beginning is true... I'm voting for Kerry BECAUSE HE IS NOT BUSH. Good Lord, at this point, what other motivation do you need? Things couldn't POSSIBLY get worse than they are right now! The entire WORLD DESPISES us !!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×