From Electrolite:
Posted by DeLong at June 3, 2003 03:43 PM | TrackBackDavid Scott Marley was always one of our favorite Well posters, whether under the "hudu" ID or otherwise. On his weblog, he quotes Newsweek:
It is disheartening that the military was unable to secure Saddam's large nuclear-material storage site at Al Tuwaitha before the looters got there. Materials for a "dirty bomb" could have found their way by now into the hands of terrorists.Says Scott:I like "unable". Makes it sound like they tried and couldn't pull it off. It is disheartening that Enron was unable to balance its books. It is disheartening that Neil Bush was unable to return the profits he made off the S&L deregulation scandal. It is disheartening that Jeb Bush was unable to ensure an accurate count of his state's ballots. That kind of thing.
Heh. Too Funny.
Posted by: B. Church on June 3, 2003 06:29 PMUnable to reduce government spending. Unable to raise the tax revenues to pay for government spending. Unable to write an honest budget or economic analysis. After all - Karl Rove says such actions will costs the GOP votes
Posted by: Hal McClure on June 3, 2003 09:14 PMIt wasn't as important as securing the Oil Ministry.
Posted by: bakho on June 3, 2003 11:18 PMWhy worry about the dirty bomb from Iraq looting? Somebody already stole the perfect ingredients from Halliburton in Nigeria. Surprisingly, or not(?), while this only happened in March, the story seems to be quickly disappearing from the web. Got to love the cached stuff on search engines though. Try the following string on your favorite search engine(Halliburton Nigeria radioactive).
Posted by: Amused Reader on June 4, 2003 12:41 AMIt is disheartening that Bill Clinton was unable to provide evidence that the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant he destroyed in the Sudan did anything but make medicines.
US ¿intelligence? is not very bright as it seems: they don't learn from past errors.
DSW
Posted by: Antoni Jaume on June 4, 2003 10:45 AMMark,
why do you have to reflexively bring in Clinton?
Are you so afraid of admitting that the present administration was just wrong that you have to instantly reach back and find a 'counterexample' where clinton (or carter) did soemthing?
Think about that for a second:
you (to your kid): Why did you beat your sister?
your kid: But Robert beat up his sister...
Mark -
The BIN LADEN pharmaceutical plant. Don't forget that part. The Republicans like to claim he was distracting the press from Lewinsky - but he was attacking Bin Laden. Don't leave that part out. He was attacking Bin Laden. He also sent dozens of cruise missiles into Afghanistan to try to knock out al-Queda.
Posted by: IssuesGuy on June 5, 2003 04:06 PM"The BIN LADEN pharmaceutical plant."
Complete nonsense. The Al Shifa plant wasn't owned by bin Laden, or even by any business partner or friend of bin Laden. The owner was Salah (also spelled Saleh) Idris, a Saudi businessman who'd purchased the plant 5 months earlier.
"...but he was attacking Bin Laden. Don't leave that part out. He was attacking Bin Laden."
YOU can repeat that all you like, in the manner of some Jim Jones' People's Temple fanatic. But that does NOT make it a fact. I absolutely defy you to show a link to evidence that Osama bin Laden was in any way involved in the construction or operation of the Al Shifa plant in the Sudan.
The U.S. government, supported by The People (mainly Democrats, but a considerable percentage of Republicans, too) destroyed a privately owned major pharmaceutical factory in a country wracked by civil war. Thhe overwhelming evidence is that the plant was NOT involved, in any way, in the production of chemical weapons or their precursors. And the overwhelming evidence is that the plant's owner was NOT working for or with Osama bin Laden.