Dems Wimp Out on Bush & Prewar Intelligence

As part of its much belated inquiry into the prewar intelligence, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a 229-page report on Friday on the intelligence produced by US intelligence agencies on what could be expected to occur in Iraq following a US invasion. No surprise: the intelligence community foresaw the likelihood of chaos and trouble inside and outside Iraq.

As the committee's report notes, before the war the top intelligence analysts of the United States government concluded that creating a stable democratic government in Iraq would be a difficult and "turbulent" challenge, that sectarian conflict could erupt in a post-invasion Iraq, that al Qaeda would view a US invasion of Iraq as an opportunity to increase and enhance its terrorist attacks, that a heightened terrorist threat would exist for several years, that the US occupation of Iraq would probably cause a rise of Islamic fundamentalism and a boost in funding for terrorist groups, and that Iran's role in the region would enlarge.

That is, prior to the war, the experts predicted the tough times to come. In the book I co-wrote with Michael Isikoff Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, we reported that the intelligence community and the Pentagon had produced several estimates in early 2003 that warned about what could happen following a U.S. invasion. In his memoirs, former CIA director George Tenet quoted from some of these intelligence assessments. And the Senate Intelligence Committee report reprints two such studies. The intelligence establishment blew the WMD call--partly because it failed to accept its own skeptical intelligence evaluations--but it was largely correct about what would transpire after the United States entered Iraq.

But the Senate Intelligence Committee--now chaired by Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller--blinked.

That assessment comes from one of the committee's own members: Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat. In comments attached to the report, she justifiably gripes that the report ignores a critical matter--what the Bush administration did (or did not do) with all this strong intelligence. She writes:

I believe that the report could have, and should have, been much stronger and more direct on the quality and use of prewar intelligence.

In particular, the report should have included a conclusion that the quality of prewar assessments was generally high and that many of the predictions made by the Intelligence Community (IC) about postwar Iraq proved to be correct. There should also have been a conclusion that although policymakers had access to these assessments...they failed to take steps to prevent or lessen postwar challenges.

Feinstein is essentially charging that Rockefeller wimped out. He let the Bush White House off the hook. As Feinstein writes,

A more troubling aspect of prewar assessments on postwar Iraq was the extent to which they were ignored by policymakers....In the rare occasion that Administration officials addressed the postwar environment, their statements tended to ignore or directly contradict the IC's views.

Moreover, major policy decisions, including the number of troops needed after the initial combat phase and the extent of de-Baathification in the government and security forces, flatly ignored the assessments and recommendations of intelligence officials. Similarly, intelligence recommendations to actively engage Iraq's neighbors, especially Iran, in the postwar period were dismissed.

There is a bottom-line here: Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and other top administration officials shirked their duties by not planning for the troubles predicted by the intelligence community. Moreover, they misled the public, by presenting images of a post-invasion Iraq not supported by the assessments produced by the government's analysts. Feinstein notes:

The Committee has seen no evidence that government officials and decisionmakers appropriately considered and prepared for the difficulties in the postwar environment that were predicted by the Intelligence Community. The failure to act on this intelligence is a key contributing factor to the current situation in Iraq.

The Senate intelligence committee dropped the ball on the most important point: how Bush and his colleagues paid little heed to reality (or predictions of a reality to come) when they took the nation to war. It's good to know that the intelligence community--which screwed up the WMD question--did get something right. (The CIA also was correct when it produced reports saying there was no evidence of an operational link between Iraq and al Qaeda--a conclusion mocked by neocons in the Bush administration.) Yet the more significant issue is how Bush and his aides handled the decision to go to war. As the report shows--without stating so--the president and his team disregarded the experts and, thus, steered the country into one helluva ditch in Iraq.

The Senate intelligence committee has yet to finish its so-called "Phase II" report on the administration's use (or abuse) of the prewar intelligence on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. That inquiry has been the subject of contention between Republicans and Democrats on the committee for the past three years. (The Democrats even shut down the Senate for a few hours to protest the Republicans' reluctance to wrap up that investigation.) But if the latest committee report is any indication, Bush critics, even fellow Democrats of Jay Rockefeller, may end up disappointed when the long-awaited Phase II report finally emerges.

*****

JUST OUT IN PAPERBACK: HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR by Michael Isikoff and David Corn. The paperback edition of this New York Times bestseller contains a new afterword on George W. Bush's so-called surge in Iraq and the Scooter Libby trial. The Washington Post said of Hubris: "Indispensable....This [book] pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." The New York Times called it, "The most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations...fascinating reading." Tom Brokaw praised it as "a bold and provocative book." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.

Comments (159)

1. Well, Mr Corn, first....

   do we REALLY need another "Hubris" plug?

   Second, "Congress wimps out"? Sort of expected at this point.

   Third, interesting that the 30% Crowd (LVLIB, HAPPY, etc) are now saying "Well, nobody could have foreseen this insurgency" "Reality changes in war-time" "Nobody could have predicted things would go south, so it's not Bush & Cheney's fault!"

   Guess not, huh?

   Posted by Mask at 05/29/2007 @ 12:24pm

2. Feinstein notes:

   The Committee has seen no evidence that government officials and decisionmakers appropriately considered and prepared for the difficulties in the postwar environment that were predicted by the Intelligence Community. The failure to act on this intelligence is a key contributing factor to the current situation in Iraq.

   It should be obvious to serious folks on how difficult it would be to plan for ALL POSSIBLE outcomes of launching a war. Clearly, even we who supported the removal of Saddam, feel that more of the possible outcomes (now in evidence) should have been expected and headed off....particularly wrt Iran's meddling...given the mutual & long-standing 3-way animosity.

   What I would also like to know, is ALL POSSIBLE GOOD outcomes that were expected and how well we stack up? One or two things that almost surely were NOT EXPECTED, have to be the French & German Elections that will pay `dividends' in the long War on Islamic Radicals.

   Posted by Happy at 05/29/2007 @ 12:34pm

3. Masky, wrong you are......What this report proves is that everyone who cared to know in the Senate knew the probable scenarios, and that includes Senators Clinton, Edwards, Hagel, et al......Only candidate Obama can plausibly claim to be out of the loop since he wasn't in office............

   Certainly President Bush knew the pitfalls, but went ahead with the invasion anyway, aginst Bush the elder's advice, among others.......

   Agree or disagree with the decision, Bush and Co. and the republican party are paying the price for starting an unpopular war, hardly a legacy any Commander in Chief would want......

   But, it ain't over 'til it's over......

   Posted by davebarlett at 05/29/2007 @ 12:40pm

4. ...the 30% Crowd (LVLIB, HAPPY, etc) are now saying "Well, nobody could have foreseen this insurgency" "Reality changes in war-time" "Nobody could have predicted things would go south, so it's not Bush & Cheney's fault!"

   Posted by MASK 05/29/2007 @ 12:24pm

   MASK,

   You misrepresented some (LVLIB, HAPPY, etc) of our views. Go dig up where any of us said the 1st & 3rd (excepting "Reality changes") part of our alleged viewpoints.

   Any intel. analysts ought to be able to come up with a long list of potential troubles, no? How would you like to bet somewhere, there are multiple long lists of `possible bad things' for any given `hot' spots in the world IF the U.S. gets `actively' involved!

   Posted by Happy at 05/29/2007 @ 12:42pm

5. While yon SSCI report was downloading, I found that Congress was recently trying to get the President to turn over the President's Daily Briefs concerning Iraq from 1997 to March 2003 (as part of the Intelligence Authorization Bill). The ranking Republican objected in a May 24, 2007 commmittee press release:

   "While Bond praised the overall passage of the bill, he expressed concern about a new provision that requires the President to provide the Congressional intelligence committees with all President's Daily Briefs (PDBs) concerning Iraq during the period beginning on January 20, 1997 and ending on March 19, 2003. Bond has long-stressed the importance of passing an intelligence authorization bill and the administration's opposition to this provision could likely result in a veto. "

   What is this about? It includes the Clinton years so you'd think they'd be delighted.

   Posted by RLawrence at 05/29/2007 @ 12:49pm

6. Republicans want to get rid of intelligence, get rid of health care, get rid of education in America. Replace intelligence with a Central Ignorance Administration just like they did, ignoring smart people who told them Saddam Hussein was against Al Qaida. Bush got rid of electricity in Iraq, got rid of hospitals, got rid of security, got rid of 15% of it's population which already became refugees. Bush and his Republicans knew they were lying to start the war and the Americans were gullible who fell for it.

   Posted by conshame at 05/29/2007 @ 1:01pm

7. But, it ain't over 'til it's over......

   Posted by DAVEBARLETT 05/29/2007 @ 12:40pm

   It's over. The rumor mills are turning out the grist and they're all indicating (especially with the "trilateral" meeting in Baghdad with the Iranians), that Bush is looking for a way to cut troop strength by September.

   Those same Republicans (the ones that survived 2006) are looking for a way to get this war behind them.

   So...prediction time...Petraeus returns, says "the Surge" is working (despite this month being the deadliest for US troops this year and THIRD deadliest since the invasion), and Bush announces that the "Surged troops" will be withdrawn. No time-tables for the rest, but HINTS that it'll be down to HALF the present number by September '08.

   The 30% guys will claim "it's working and we're ON THE ROAD to withdrawal" and proclaim the wonders of Bush's "strategery".

   If we're lucky, the Iranians will cut a deal with us. Bush sells out to the Axis of Evil, but atleast we can start pulling the troops out. It'll make interesting back-pedalling from those who wanted us to nuke Iran just weeks ago....but their hypocrisy isn't the important thing. Getting us out of this mess is.

   If we're unlucky?....Hillary's going to inherit a regional war and we'll get $6-7 a gallon gas and a recession.

   Posted by Mask at 05/29/2007 @ 1:04pm

8. Posted by CONSHAME 05/29/2007 @ 1:01pm

   CONSHAME, wonder if you can set aside your religious fervor for a minute and your discussion of all things evil, i.e. Republican....

   and tell us which political party the TITLE and subject of this article is referring to?

   Posted by Mask at 05/29/2007 @ 1:05pm

9. Posted by HAPPY 05/29/2007 @ 12:42pm

   Okay, HAPP, before I accuse you falsely of #1 and #3.....

   you predicted a strong potential for an insurgency in March 2003???

   Posted by Mask at 05/29/2007 @ 1:07pm

10. Weirdly accurate comment on Page 2 of the SSCI report. Says that officials say that intelligence didn't play a central role in assessments about the post-war period because that wasn't an issue well-suited to intelligence. They said knowledge of the region and history was more important, and that's what the analysts chiefly based their assessments on.

    Posted by RLawrence at 05/29/2007 @ 1:17pm

11. The report says that one of the key analyses that circualated at the time had as one of its main assumptions that a US-backed government would be put in place that would eventually "devolve" to full Iraqi self-governamce within five years.

    Didn't somebody just write a whole book about how this never works? If it's U.S.-backed, it ain't demoratic and the people we've imposed it on mistrust the puppet regime. It's a recipe for instability.

    Posted by RLawrence at 05/29/2007 @ 1:27pm

12. One or two things that almost surely were NOT EXPECTED, have to be the French & German Elections that will pay `dividends' in the long War on Islamic Radicals.

    Posted by HAPPY 05/29/2007 @ 12:34pm | ignore this person

    so the Iraq war influenced elections in germany and france? and they are now just desperate to get their troops into Iraq? you are a hoot.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/29/2007 @ 1:27pm

13. Page 7 and 8 --the prewar reports predicted everything about how the invasion would spur tair activities within Iraq, and that climaite of general violence would allow those forces to thrive and get bolder. The prewar reports predicted that Iraq action would allow Afghanistan situation to deterioriate.

    Seems obvious, but good to see it stated in an official Senate committee report.

    Posted by RLawrence at 05/29/2007 @ 1:36pm

14. Maybe Feinstein is wrong. Maybe the Administration didn't ignore these analyses. Maybe they were banking on them.

    The report says that according to the prewar analyses, it would be hard in the post war confusion of violence to keep the new Tair groups straight. Well, that's exactly what The Great Conflater (as Calvin Trillin calls him) likes. Doesn't like people to agonize over the Tair the invasion created and the stuff that happened before. Confusion is good. Maybe Feinstein is wrong -- maybe they saw this part of the analyses and thought, "Hey! Even better!"

    Same with the prediction that Iraq's neighbors, including Iran would get testy. They didn't ignore it -- maybe they wanted it.

    Posted by RLawrence at 05/29/2007 @ 1:42pm

15. Pages 11 - 12: Risks of De-Baathification: Predicted. Humanitarian crisis (1.45 million refugees): predicted.

    Posted by RLawrence at 05/29/2007 @ 1:47pm

16. I'm not going through them, but Appendices A and B are the declassified prewar intelligence analyses the commitee chiefly relied on in forming its conclusions. They seem to have been ICAs (like NIEs but with a lower pre-approval thershhold) circulated around January 2003. Sort of a survey of all the intelligence agencies on a topic.

    Posted by RLawrence at 05/29/2007 @ 1:59pm

17. Posted by HAPPY 05/29/2007 @ 12:34pm

    Hey, maybe they can put the Hapster on the next installment of "Dancing with the Stars". We'll spend $2 trillion on Iraq...3466 dead U.S. Sevicemen--and counting...over 500,000 Iraqis dead, over 2 million displaced...no end in sight....

    But, booyah!!! Lookit the way the French and German elections came out!!! Keep dancing, Hapster. Can you juggle, too?

    Posted by nathanhale at 05/29/2007 @ 2:02pm

18. Appendix C, summary of other pre-war assessments besides the two ICAs from Janaury 2003.

    Appendix D: distribution lists. (Who received the two pre-war reports.) Hadley (then in West Wing) and Libby on front page of both lists. Can't tell if everybody got the full version or some lesser people received redacted versions.

    Posted by RLawrence at 05/29/2007 @ 2:13pm

19. LOL! Kit Bond says in his "additional statement" that "Unfortunately," this report about post-war planning that's being released as part of Phase II of the SSCI Report on Pre-War intelligence "does not meet the standard set by the Committee's Phase I inquiry."

    I bet it doesn't! Rockefeller's too tall to limbo down to that standard.

    Posted by RLawrence at 05/29/2007 @ 2:18pm

20. Well, Senator Bond, since you're making such a fuss over the incusion of the Distribution lists, I'll quote YOU as reporting that Doug Feith is included.

    "Partisanship" blah blah, says Bond. (And, sadly, Senator Warner signed on to this silly "additional statement"). Apparently in Phase I they limited the distribution list to "department heads and cabinet-level officers." What a dodge. Now they're saying Rockefeller is being "partisan" to include the list.

    And The Nation article is aying that Rockefeller actually held back and left to Senator Feinstein's own "additonal statement" to state explicity what the list implies: that the recipients wilfully ignored the reports. Bond should be thankful for small favors.

    Posted by RLawrence at 05/29/2007 @ 2:30pm

21. Thats too bad that like Cindy Sheehan said, Democrats got on her case. She did say she is no longer a Democrat, which is a terribly wrong position because it places you in common-league with the Republicans, but I often call my Senators and tell them I am leaving the Democratic party even though I am not. The Democratic Leadership should have whipped up this anger on purpose, because it will cleanse the Democratic party. I hope nobody responsible said anything negative to Cindy Sheehan.

    Posted by conshame at 05/29/2007 @ 2:34pm

22. Cindy Sheehans attack on the Democratic Party was not just-before an election, it wasn't reckless, it was perfectly timed at a moment of disgrace, she should not have been counter-attacked if she was, what she said was in harh terms but it was constructive criticism.

    Posted by conshame at 05/29/2007 @ 2:37pm

23. Ok, let me get this straight-- is this a report about the Phase II report? And thus the Phase II report could change because of this report? So dems whimping out hasn't happened yet, or it has, but this isn't about the Phase II report, just the report about Phase II, or it has nothing to do with Phase II?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/29/2007 @ 2:39pm

24. BTW, the Iraq pre-war intel was so well known for years that it was story plot in the 90's, one examble:

    USA Network, La Femme Nikita, "End Game," 1998-- Nikita discovers that the secret anti-terrorist organization she works for, Section One, has been propping up Saddam Hussein. Nikita confronts her boss, "Operations," with this fact, and Operations gives her the following explanation:

    "OPERATIONS: Yes, we scratch Hussein's back, and he scratches ours because the alternative is chaos. We've run sims, thousands of them. Based on the assessments of brilliant people who devote their lives to this. Without Hussein, the groups he sponsors would splinter and multiply like viruses. They'd be starved for funds and would use extreme measures to obtain them. Whatever restraints exist on their behavior now, would vanish. Without Hussein, the country disintegrates in months. In a year, adjoining countries follow and the entire region by year four. By year six, a nuclear incident takes place in the Middle East. By year eight, three more detonations occur throughout the world, killing two million people directly, 20 million indirectly. In the year ten, a man-made plague ravages Europe and spreads to India and China. Estimated casualties -- fifty million people. After that it gets worse."

    Granted the idea was only to take out Saddam Hussien, not occupy Iraq with US troops. That fact may have bought some time, but that final sentence still seems to ring true, "After that it gets worse."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/29/2007 @ 2:41pm

25. Can you juggle, too?

    Posted by NATHANHALE 05/29/2007 @ 2:02pm

    You have anything more intelligent than this sneering? If not, I'm looking forward to `killing' you (supporter of "wimps"?) TODAY!

    Posted by Happy at 05/29/2007 @ 2:57pm

26. ....But I often call my Senators and tell them I am leaving the Democratic party even though I am not....

    Posted by CONSHAME 05/29/2007 @ 2:34pm

    CS,

    Is it any wonder the Dems DON'T take the far left seriously? I sure wouldn't....Your votes are the next most reliable to the blacks!

    Posted by Happy at 05/29/2007 @ 3:01pm

27. OMG....how nutty do you have to be to get me and HAPPY on the same page...

    "but I often call my Senators and tell them I am leaving the Democratic party even though I am not."----Posted by CONSHAME 05/29/2007 @ 2:34pm

    Ya think they figure out the trick, when they fail to lose the next election???

    LOL! Seriously, is CS ....a teenager or "developmentally delayed"?

    Posted by Mask at 05/29/2007 @ 3:19pm

28. Posted by HAPPY 05/29/2007 @ 2:57pm

    What an excellent retort! Cancel that appearance on "Dancing Wtih the Stars". I think we can get a spot for Happy as the headliner on "When Dwarves Attack!"

    Yeah, Happy, get back to me after you've sent a letter to each of the families of the 3466 military personnel who have died in Iraq, thanking them for helping to affect the outcome of elections in France and Germany.

    Posted by nathanhale at 05/29/2007 @ 3:33pm

29. What an excellent retort!...get a spot for Happy as the headliner on "When Dwarves Attack!"

    Posted by NATHANHALE 05/29/2007 @ 3:33pm

    Thanks.....perhaps I ought to probation you, for now!

    Posted by Happy at 05/29/2007 @ 4:01pm

30. NO NO NO!!!

    It will be a cakewalk. We will be greeted as liberators!! It will take months, maybe weeks, certainly not years!@!! The Iraqis will fund 99% of the work!!!

    Happy must be on happy pills.

    the worse it gets, the farther the neo-cons have to reach. France and Germany?! Please.

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/29/2007 @ 4:38pm

31. As far as pre-war predictions.....

    How about Cheney "poo-poo'ing" Stephanopolous on "This Week" when he said some experts predicted the war could cost $100 to 200 Billion and Cheney said that was outrageous and "it will be more like $50 Billion".

    We're now at TEN TIMES that!

    Posted by Mask at 05/29/2007 @ 4:52pm

32. So, Happy, are you going to give the Iraqis back the money you made from Exxon stocks during the oil for food period? Chevron? How about the money you made from halliburton stocks, money they were paid for construction projects never finished? Can we tax payers get some of our cash back from you, seeing as Halliburton is keeping what they made?

    BTW, how much more taxes are the neo-cons willing to pay to pay for the endless ME war they want? As much as it takes? As little as they can get away with (status quo)?

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/29/2007 @ 4:54pm

33. Weel, then, back to the topic.... Did the Dems wimp out? Maybe; but they got into record a report that gives a review of what the intelligence was at the time and, as RLawrence mentions, names the names of who got the intelligence. They also got two Republicans to vote for the report. The report may lack the toughness that Feinstein laments, but I don't think the "Verdict of History" will be any less damning of the Bush Administration for that. Anything Feinstein might wish had been included wouldn't change the tune of the 30%'ers anyway...although we may sooon have to change their name to the 25%'ers.

    Posted by nathanhale at 05/29/2007 @ 4:56pm

34. Posted by NATHANHALE 05/29/2007 @ 4:56pm | ignore this person

    even half measures have a way of adding up.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/29/2007 @ 4:59pm

35. 13%ers are still with cHeney!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/29/2007 @ 5:02pm

36. Hey JR, tell that to Frito.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/29/2007 @ 5:03pm

37. • Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

    March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. ... I think it will go relatively quickly, ... (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard ... are likely to step aside."

    There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

    You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam. President Bush, 9/25/02

    Iraq will be an affordable endeavor that will not require sustained aid and will be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion .Budget Director Mitch Daniels [Forbes 4/11/03, W. Post 3/28/03, NY Times 1/2/03, respectively

    In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries and Iraqi oil revenues The American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this. USAID Director Andrew Natsios, 4/23/03

    I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed Vice President Cheney, [ 9/14/03 ]

    What is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 2/27/03

    The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish. Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, 3/4/03

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/29/2007 @ 5:04pm

38. every dem that voted to give Chimpy the go-ahead for this fiasco has blood on their hands, just as much as any republican.

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/29/2007 @ 5:06pm

39. If we're unlucky?....Hillary's going to inherit a regional war and we'll get $6-7 a gallon gas and a recession.

    Posted by MASK 05/29/2007 @ 1:04pm | ignore this person

    Prediction:

    If we still have a significant committment of troops in Iraq, Hillary, if she is the democrat nominee, will not win the general election. People will fall back into the old, does he look and/or sound like a general, and if not, then we will get another gung-ho drop another bomb republican. Americans are so easy to fool.

    But let's not pretend that Hillary (or any other 'electable' demorcat candidate would do anything to pull the troops out of Iraq if she indeed does inherit this war. She will have to stay in it to make a legacy of "winning" the war, not running from it. I think it will be a few presidents from now when one gets elected that is "sacrificial" enough to get them to publically declare that we have lost the war, and bring the troops home.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/29/2007 @ 5:11pm

40. Hey Masky,

    It's all part of the plan for when Al Gore gets back into the debate.

    Remeber:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/29/2007 @ 5:18pm

41. She will have to stay in it to make a legacy of "winning" the war, not running from it.

    Posted by WALLSTREET 05/29/2007 @ 5:11pm

    Er, totally wrong if the next pres wants it to be owned totally by hsuB-- the sooner we're out the more hsuB owns the whole disaster.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/29/2007 @ 5:22pm

42. I think it will be a few presidents from now when one gets elected that is "sacrificial" enough to get them to publically declare that we have lost the war, and bring the troops home.

    Posted by WALLSTREET 05/29/2007 @ 5:11pm | ignore this person

    so you think we'll be in Iraq for a decade? notachance.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/29/2007 @ 5:34pm

43. Oh pooooor David! He's got his panties in a bunch over the fact ( I told you morons that you had nothing on Bush ! ) that the Dem's have no case concerning pre-war intelligence and the hope/wish/desire to blame Bush for faulty pre-war intel. " Bush lied, thousands died" is just silly propaganda by leftist nuts and this proves it! The LEFT HAS NOTHING! No RED DRESS, no NOTHING!! Ha HA HA HA! So, there will still be those sick, twisted losers on the left who are convinced that Bush lied by repeating the claims of the Clinton Adm. concerning WMD's but some nut's are hard to crack! Regardless, nothing will come of it and I love how frustrated the it makes the left! So, in typical leftist peaceful fashion, why don't you fools go express yourself by using a typical liberal tactic of protest and go out and steal American flags from the graves of US soldiers and replace them with Nazi paraphenilia! The classy and respectful tactics of the peaceful, tolerant, and patriotic left never cease to amaze me!

    Posted by barry25 at 05/29/2007 @ 5:41pm

44. so you think we'll be in Iraq for a decade? notachance.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF

    Not without a draft. And, of course, a draft--having to send your loved ones to fight--isn't going to fly.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/29/2007 @ 5:55pm

45. ..you predicted a strong potential for an insurgency in March 2003???

    Posted by MASK 05/29/2007 @ 1:07pm

    Can't say I did! What I did give some thoughts to was Iran, effects on oil market and whether Bush 41 played a role. On Iran, I did think there was some elements of "Let's intimidate Tehran a bit by plopping down next door"....

    BTW, don't tell me YOU predicted it! Possibility is not the same as "strong potential"! IF you did publicly (?here at TN?), show me in the archives and......all the beer you can drink anytime you are in Houston (IF you don't live in Texas)!

    Posted by Happy at 05/29/2007 @ 5:57pm

46. so you think we'll be in Iraq for a decade? notachance.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/29/2007 @ 5:34pm

    My 2-bits: Let's hope NOT but I'd view the chance as not much less than 50/50....say 1 in 3! IF Iran continues w/nuclear ambitions AND the Iraqi Gov't don't ask us to leave, we will be in Iraq quite a while--but at a reduced (<100k) level. Look on the bright side, we'll already have a brand new Embassy sized just right!

    Posted by Happy at 05/29/2007 @ 6:06pm

47. BARRY25 05/29/2007 @ 5:41pm

    Oh drat, another typical liberal tactic of protest exposed! No use for my Nazi paraphernalia now, thanks to the work of the inimitable Barry25!

    Psst, anyone want to buy some slightly used American flags? One owner, good condition.

    What a fruitcake.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 05/29/2007 @ 6:08pm

48. Plame was ‘covert' agent at time of name leak

    Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment

    An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.

    The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation.

    The nature of Plame's CIA employment never came up in Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice trial.

    Undercover travel The unclassified summary of Plame's employment with the CIA at the time that syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says, "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

    Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

    The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."

    Criminal prosecution beat national security After the Novak column was published and Plame's identity was widely reported in the media, and according to the document, "the CIA lifted Ms Wilson's cover" and then "rolled back her cover" effective to the date of the leak.

    The CIA determined, "that the public interest in allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed outweighed the damage to national security that might reasonably be expected from the official disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment and cover status."

    The CIA has not divulged any other details of the nature of Plame's cover or the methods employed by the CIA to protect her cover nor the details of her classified intelligence activities. Plame resigned from the CIA in December 2005.

    Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson have filed a lawsuit against four current or former top Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career at the CIA.

    More HERE [msnbc.msn.com]

    *****end of clip*****

    Even the MSM is calling out the Libby lobby as the looney liars.

    capt

    Posted by CaptainKirk at 05/29/2007 @ 6:10pm

49. Posted by CAPTAINKIRK 05/29/2007 @ 6:10pm

    Wonder what Pontificus will have to say about this. Seems he finally got that direct allegation from Fitzgerald he was looking for.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/29/2007 @ 6:29pm

50. Plame? get over it! Just like Impeachment, this is a dead story! So, keep whining and sniveling, but it ain't goin' nowhere! HAHAHAHAHA!

    Posted by barry25 at 05/29/2007 @ 6:33pm

51. every dem that voted to give Chimpy the go-ahead for this fiasco has blood on their hands, just as much as any republican.

    Posted by CRABWALK 05/29/2007 @ 5:06pm

    No not really. The vote wasn't to go to war, but to have the 'leverage'. Plus if hsuB were complying to what was authorized-- the inspectors hsuB kicked out, would still be there and troops would have never needed to step into Iraq.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

    Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

    Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

    {Ritter said, "When I left Iraq in 1998... the infrastructure and facilities had been 100% eliminated. There's no doubt about that. All of their instruments and facilities had been destroyed. The weapons design facility had been destroyed. The production equipment had been hunted down and destroyed. And we had in place means to monitor - both from vehicles and from the air - the gamma rays that accompany attempts to enrich uranium or plutonium. We never found anything."}

    Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

    {Inspecters arrived in Iraq again (un-res 1441) on November 2002, headed by Hans Blix, Finding no WMD, hsuB tells the inspecters to leave in March 2003, to begin war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_2001-2003}

    Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

    Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

    Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

    This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

    SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

    The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

    (a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

    (b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

    SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

    (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/29/2007 @ 6:59pm

52. Posted by WALLSTREET 05/29/2007 @ 5:11pm

    The chances of Republican winning the White House in 2008 are zero.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/29/2007 @ 5:34pm

    Korea?

    Posted by BARRY25 05/29/2007 @ 5:41pm

    "The classy and respectful tactics..." I believe the appropriate word is: irony.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/29/2007 @ 5:55pm

    I think your being pessimistic MTS. I'm sure all the people in favor of the Iraq war would be more than happy to accept a draft to fight in it - or have a blood relative proxy - until it is over.

    Posted by srjenkins at 05/29/2007 @ 8:42pm

53. Why so much cut and paste to make your point? Actually it's someones else's point.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/29/2007 @ 8:51pm

54. I'm sure all the people in favor of the Iraq war would be more than happy to accept a draft to fight in it - or have a blood relative proxy - until it is over.

    Irony?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/29/2007 @ 10:10pm

55. Mitt Romney wants to get named into history rather than money! Smart Mitt is modeling (or remodeling if you will) himself after Mike Bloomberg of New York who gets only $1 a year as the City mayor. Read this news. ----------- Republican Hopeful Romney Vows to Donate White House Salary to Charity if Elected Tuesday, May 29, 2007 DOVER, N.H. -- Republican Mitt Romney, conceding that his business career helped him make more money than he expected, said Tuesday he would likely decline a salary as president and instead donate the money -- and more -- to charity.

    During a question-and-answer session with Liberty Mutual employees, Romney said that despite his personal wealth -- his assets likely will total $190 million to $250 million -- he has committed himself to public service, from head of the 2002 Winter Olympics to one-term governor of Massachusetts.

    Posted by Helen DAO at 05/29/2007 @ 10:15pm

56. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/29/2007 @ 5:18pm

    HSUB, I'll make a prediction....when Gore doesn't run and bills of impeachment aren't forthcoming by Trick or Treat Time....

    you'll have ten good, solid rationalizations for why you were right, but "evil forces" conspirad against you and Al.

    Posted by Mask at 05/29/2007 @ 10:59pm

57. David is seriously pumping his book--paperback for HUBRIS out today! From DavidCorn.com:

    May 29, 2007

    Hubris: The Paperback

    We interrupt this blog to bring you this important new....

    Today the paperback edition of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, the New York Times bestseller by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, goes on sale. You can order it here.

    I know--don't ask me how I know--that there are visitors to this site who did not purchase a copy of the hardback when it came out last September. All will be forgiven if you now buy two copies of the paperback, which has a new chapter covering George W. Bush's so-called surge in Iraq and the Scooter Libby trial.

    The hardback sold well, landed on several bestsellers list.....

    So please, buy the book. Or did I say that already?

    Posted by David Corn at 10:20 AM

    Posted by Happy at 05/29/2007 @ 11:44pm

58. It should be obvious to serious folks on how difficult it would be to plan for ALL POSSIBLE outcomes of launching a war. Posted by HAPPY 05/29/2007 @ 12:34pm

    Again HAPPY leads with a fallacy. Under the cover of "ALL POSSIBLE outcomes", he excuses the Bush administration for ignoring, which is to say not taking any measures to manage post-invasion problems predicted by our intellegence agencies.

    These problems are the very problems that put HAPPY in the 30% and the other 70% of Americans in the category of 'Why did Bush take us into this hellish quagmire Iraq?'

    We have borrowed and spent $512 BILLION on this war of choice.

    Nobel Prize Winner Economist Joseph Stieglitz estimates this war, including debt service and future costs of VA and healthcare for vets, to total $1.5 to $2 TRILLION.

    Al Quada recruitment has been more successful as a direct result of our incursion in Iraq.

    We allegedly went to secure WMD and fight Al Quada. Neither were there when we arrived.

    Serious folks don't expect Bush to plan for ALL POSSIBLE outcomes, they just expect Bush to manage the ones put in his face by the people (CIA) paid to identify them. Does that make HAPPY one of the serious folks... or not?

    Posted by NeilSagan at 05/30/2007 @ 01:09am

59. Posted by MASK 05/29/2007 @ 10:59p

    By any chance did you happen to see Countdown w/KO today? Keith gave Gore like 10-15 minutes to talk about Sheehan, congress, hsuB, media manipulation,... Keith says via close friend of Al's says 50/50 chance Gore running. Gore said he hasn't completely ruled it out. And when Gore does announce-- will you say you're just full of BS? Or as always, get frantic and hysterical?

    As for new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy-- Frito, cHeney and then hsuB's inevitable impeachment by way of (something you tend to obscure), reason, the ‘honest' logical use of fact; as their crimes, already committed, are awaiting only unwavering acceptance of their appearance.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 01:17am

60. Plame? get over it! Just like Impeachment, this is a dead story! Posted by BARRY25 05/29/2007 @ 6:33pm

    The maximum sentence for Libby's four felonies is 25 years. Federal sentencing guidelines put it at 15 to 20 months. Fitzgerald, in his sentencing memorandum filed last Friday, argued Libby should get 30 to 37 months, that's 2.5 to 3.125 years.

    Libby lied, committed perjury and obstructed the investigation of the CIA leak case. Libby is unrepentent. He maintains his innocence. That works against him in sentencing. He'll go to jail.

    Republicans used to believe in law and order. Now, they think criminal justice is just for the other guy, not their guy. How far they've fallen.

    Posted by NeilSagan at 05/30/2007 @ 01:23am

61. I believe we just heard a sound similar to one whos bowels all let loose at once...and that is exactly the sound of the impeachment and Bush lied link hitting the floor.

    Its over, the dems DID see the same info, came up with the same solutions and senarios and went in anyway believing an opportunity presented itself for a quick success for everyone involved to get a piece and have the US sitting on top of a new mid east, despite evidence that it was going to be a long tough haul if it was to work at all....But alas, election time returns and the dems had nothing to run on..so, ..Bush lied and the war is worse,.and on and on...

    The whole mess is an error in the short term and all hands have poop on them...especialy on close examination..so...nothing major happens and Corn turns to paper back..

    And here is the rub for the left...they could lose it all again in 08...

    What a mess all the way around...makes me sick from all directions...any more bravely votes coming up from yopur Derm empowered Congress?

    Posted by john maasch at 05/30/2007 @ 01:33am

62. Posted by HELEN DAO 05/29/2007 @ 10:15pm

    Mitt Romney did NOT balance the state budget without raising taxes as he claims.

    How did he balance it? About 1/3 of the annual deficit disappeared because income tax receipts were much higher than expected. Mitt cut aid to cities and towns $700 Million. Almost 2/3 of city budgets go to fund education - public schools. Cities and towns had to raise real estate taxes to cover the lost revenue from the state. There was no corresponding reduction in state income tax rates to 'compensate' land owners for their higher real estate taxes.

    Mitt doesn't recognize this increase in taxes as a direct result of his budgeting priorities. Finally, Mitt raised the cost of state regulated licenses to generate more revenue, such as driver license, auto registration, fees for use of state faciliites. Ok, technically speaking, these are not tax increases unless of course these fees generate more revenue than it cost to maintain the bureaucracy.

    When you hear the claim, "Mitt balanced the budget without raising taxes" remember he's not telling you the whole truth and nothing but the truth... so help you god. On the other hand, he has nice hair.

    Posted by NeilSagan at 05/30/2007 @ 01:38am

63. Grounds for impeachment?

    According to James Comey, Bush operated an illegal domestic survellance program to which the Office of Legal Counsel was not signator. You remember the story of Card and Gonzalez trying an end run on acting Attorney General James Comey by trying to get the seriously ill John Ashcroft to sign off on the order? Ashcroft told Card and Gonzalez "no" and why it was "no" Comey would not sign it either. Bush continued to operate the program without a signature from OLC. It was days before sufficient changes were made to the program to make it legal and garner Comey signature. Comey is a Republican. Bush is an alleged felon.

    Posted by NeilSagan at 05/30/2007 @ 01:47am

64. The lesser of two evils is actually one and the same.

    Americans are trapped in a corrupt political system where our choices are apparently limited to choosing between the lesser of two evils, but our choices are actuality limited to choosing between the two heads of one snake. And that snake is the Military Industrial Congressional Complex.

    The owners of the Military Industrial Congressional Complex are our de facto rulers, and they have been since World War II. The politicians we elect don't determine or make national policy, they merely carry out instructions issued by their masters, the owners of the Military Industrial Congressional Complex. Actually the MICC should be called it the Military Industrial Congressional Media Complex because the Media is the propaganda arm of the MICC. This diabolical union of interlocking conglomerate corporations is owned by the richest one or two per cent of our population.

    These richest one or two per cent of our population define and determine our "National Interests," which amazingly always seems to coincide with their own self-interest. That's what we call "Democracy" here in America.

    .

    Posted by rabblerowzer at 05/30/2007 @ 07:27am

65. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/29/2007 @ 6:59pm

    If you bought that, then I have an ex-bridge over the Euphrates for you.

    Chimpy wanted WAR!! Any fool could plainly see it. I did.

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/30/2007 @ 08:43am

66. Its over, the dems DID see the same info, came up with the same solutions and senarios and went in anyway believing an opportunity presented itself for a quick success for everyone involved to get a piece and have the US sitting on top of a new mid east, despite evidence that it was going to be a long tough haul if it was to work at all....

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/30/2007 @ 01:33bm

    That's all the new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, have now, red bloody shit to fling against their cage.

    Having trouble with the hsuB/cHeney admin totally owning this disaster Maasch? Need to sprend it around since hsuB didn't adhere to the resolutions, so you make shit up.

    No one wanted to go into Iraq, just wanted Iraq to adhere to UN resolutions, which Iraq was doing in tiny increments with the inspectors back in, but that was way better than 100's of thousands dying-- don't you think? We could be serging the inspectors right now. NO, the new con supports, servicers to dic'tator philosophy, smelled blood. They'll always need other people's blood to qwelch their FEAR. Cowards always overreact. Fail.

    What Maasch can't admit is that he's beginning to see his hands turning redder and redder and is going about trying frantically to wipe them off on as many people as possible. Worried about all those fingers pointing at you, aye Maasch. Being guilty is a bitch isn't it Maasch. Or can't you still admit to it?

    Face up be a man-- hsuB/cHeney never will.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 08:52am

67. CAP"N KIRK:

    Fascinating, Are the powers saying that the evil left was correct all along? Just like wmd's and urban civil war in Iraq?

    Wow, maybe we are better at national security than the warmongering lying sacks of dung "leading" our once proud nation.

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/30/2007 @ 08:53am

68. Posted by CAPTAINKIRK 05/29/2007 @ 6:10pm

    Wonder what Pontificus will have to say about this. Seems he finally got that direct allegation from Fitzgerald he was looking for.

    Posted by HMAN23 05/29/2007 @ 6:29pm

    I CANNOT wait to read the twisting logic that the PONTITIFPOOPUS will regurgitate from some RIGHTPAC website!!!

    Where are you PONTY?

    MAASCH, many, too many, dems went along with Chimpy. FOOLS believes they just wanted to give chimpy leverage, I don't buy that. But, many dems DID NOT believe in Saddams threat and KNEW it would devolve into Messopotamia. those dems are the ones you refer to as "loons".

    It seems the loons are far better at reality than you, and the whole republican party, excluding the loon Buchanon.

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/30/2007 @ 09:02am

69. I think Senator Pat Roberts deserves a lot of blame for this. He tabled this second phase--the phase that would examine the role of the executive in its application and interpretation of the prewar intelligence. We still haven't got the whole of it yet! This guy has been playing Mr. Sinister and giving the Executive the royal treatment. Its time that guys card came up for review.

    Posted by sastrugi at 05/30/2007 @ 09:03am

70. Loons that should have been listened to, a short list:

    Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

    Robert Byrd (D-WV)

    Jon Corzine (D-NJ)

    Richard Durbin (D-IL)

    Russell Feingold (D-WI)

    Robert Graham (D-FL)

    Daniel Inouye (D-HI)

    James Jeffords (I-VT)

    Edward Kennedy (D-MA)

    Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

    Carl Levin (D-MI)

    Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

    Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

    Paul Wellstone (D-MN)

    Daniel Akaka (D-HI) "Great uncertainty surrounds the President's post-war strategy. Remember the day the war ends, Iraq becomes our responsibility, our problem. The United States lacks strategic planning for a post-conflict situation. Retired General George Joulwan recently said that the U.S. needs 'to organize for the peace' and design now a strategy with 'clear goals, milestones, objectives.' Our objectives in Iraq have not yet been made clear: is it our goal to occupy Baghdad and if so, for how long? A rush to battle without a strategy to win the peace is folly. "I support action by the United Nations in the form of a resolution calling for unconditional and unfettered inspections in Iraq. Only after we exhaust all of our alternative means should we engage in the use of force, and before then, the President must ensure we have a strategy and plans in place for winning the war and building the peace."

    James Jeffords (I-VT)

    "I am very disturbed by President Bush's determination that the threat from Iraq is so severe and so immediate that we must rush to a military solution. I do not see it that way. I have been briefed several times by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, CIA Director Tenet and other top Administration officials. I have discussed this issue with the President. I have heard nothing that convinces me that an immediate preemptive military strike is necessary or that it would further our interests in the long term.

    "We must ensure that any action we take against Iraq does not come at the expense of the health and strength of our nation, or the stability of the international order upon which our economic security depends. Just think of what progress we could make on non-proliferation if we were to put one fraction of the cost of a war against Saddam Hussein into efforts to prevent the emergence of the next nuclear, chemical or biological threat. Strong efforts at strengthening international non-proliferation regimes would truly enhance our nation's future security."

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/30/2007 @ 09:09am

71. And when Gore does announce-- will you say you're just full of BS? Or as always, get frantic and hysterical? ---Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/30/2007 @ 01:17am

    No, I'll admit that you were right and I was wrong. I'll do the same when the bills of impeachment come out of the House and go to the Senate for trial.

    YOU, on the very obvious other hand, will come up with a battery of excuses come Halloween if neither of those things happen...but will NEVER admit you were wrong.

    That's a prediction I feel safe in making!

    Posted by Mask at 05/30/2007 @ 09:19am

72. That's a prediction I feel safe in making!

    Posted by MASK 05/30/2007 @ 09:19am

    And that's why you'd be wrong once again... You can't face you're fear. One must be fearless in looking at the facts. You tend to obscure the facts when they don't fit your bias.

    Can't play it safe most of the time especially with truth. Hard on the ego getting there though.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 09:30am

73. That's a prediction I feel safe in making!

    Posted by MASK 05/30/2007 @ 09:19am

    And that's why you'd be wrong once again... You can't face you're fear. One must be fearless in looking at the facts. You tend to obscure the facts when they don't fit your bias.

    Can't play it safe most of the time especially with truth. Hard on the ego getting there though.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 09:32am

74. FOOLS believes they just wanted to give chimpy leverage, I don't buy that.

    Posted by CRABWALK 05/30/2007 @ 09:02am

    Just going by what the resolution says. It said force if needed, it wasn't but hsuB did beyond all the dem objections. i still remember all the lies new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy repubs spred to drown out the objections by dems to hsuB not following the resolutions.That some dems felt that hsuB/cHeney were going to misuse the resolution, nor comply with it strickly-- good for them.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 09:40am

75. Posted by BARRY25 05/29/2007 @ 5:41pm | ignore this person

    Note the repeated use of 'left', 'liberal' - in the speech patterns of abusive lying conservatives.

    "Bush lied by repeating the claims of the Clinton", says this conservative abusive liar. Clinton did not claim that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 911. Clinton did not claim that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 911. 911 didnt happen yet when Clinton was in YOU REPUBLICAN-GRADE INTELLECTUAL.

    Posted by conshame at 05/30/2007 @ 10:01am

76. I think your being pessimistic MTS. I'm sure all the people in favor of the Iraq war would be more than happy to accept a draft to fight in it - or have a blood relative proxy - until it is over.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 05/29/2007 @ 8:42pm

    Don't want to appear too nationalistic but could I suggest if any one here is looking for a proxy, because you have no blood relatives jumping out of their skin to go, and you don't want "blood on your hands" do the next best thing and adopt an Aussie to fight for you. Not one dead Aussie combatant in Iraq or Afghanistan as of today. There was a close call a week or two back when a couple of their armoured vehicles ran over one of those Iranian IEDs south of Baghdad. Two blokes got of the destroyed vehicle under their own steam and the third had to be helped out, as his ankle got broken (probably shit himself when the device went off and banged his foot against the dashboard). Anyway that's the offer and as you can see our equipment is a lot safer than yours so you sort of get two for the price of one in the deal. Viz Soldiers, who play safe and vehicles with better armour.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 05/30/2007 @ 10:05am

77. It's real simple, Republicans, Bush lied - and you know it! And you are all liars yourselves! You lie, you lie, and the only right you have is to go and do your master's bidding and sign up, Bush is begging you, please I'll give you a bonus, send in your son - send in your son Republicans, to be slaughtered in Iraq, based on lies, based on lies.

    Conservatives were obsessed with a Republic vs. a Democracy, when it was really Republic vs. Empire, the key feature of an Empire being that it quickly drowns itself in quicksand.

    Posted by conshame at 05/30/2007 @ 10:12am

78. That's a prediction I feel safe in making!

    Posted by MASK 05/30/2007 @ 09:19am

    I lost track of asking if you made a prediction back in early 2003. Am I safe, at my expense, from any drinking binge of yours?

    Posted by Happy at 05/30/2007 @ 10:28am

79. Bush lied?

    He is insane and doesn't know when he is lying so he never actually lied - right?

    Tee Hee

    Posted by CaptainKirk at 05/30/2007 @ 10:32am

80. HAPPY, how about the MI senate repubs taking money promised to business and using it to put a patch on our state budget?

    "nstead, the GOP-led Senate voted to cut funding for K-12 public schools by $36 per student and to give hospitals and doctors 3 percent less for treating low-income or disabled Medicaid patients. The Republican plan also would transfer $300 million from a state investment fund for job creation to help address the shortfall in tax revenue. http://www.clickondetroit.com/politics/13336610/detail.html

    Looks like Englers legacy is going to be harsh.

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/30/2007 @ 10:53am

81. ...going to be harsh.

    Posted by CRABWALK 05/30/2007 @ 10:53am

    Choices, choices.....tradeoffs and such!

    You know, I've been to Michigan just once (though my wife is a Spartan) when I took my older son & his cousin on a major road tour of multiple college towns back ~5 yrs ago. Didn't make it to Mack Island area. You have some beautiful state w/stately, old Us'! Detroit was scary (worse than Phili).....coming in at night from the SW side!

    I sincerely hope your state can recover and stabilize in some fashion. You can't fight geographics nor demographics but your state need to do a lot more. Live by the sword, die by the sword....the UAW and USW are keys to saving what you have and daring new policies are what you need for replacement businesses/industries.

    Posted by Happy at 05/30/2007 @ 11:04am

82. Happy, I thought you said you lived in MI?

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/30/2007 @ 11:34am

83. David Corn was awesome on the Dianne Rehm show today.

    Maybe the neo-cons should actually read Hubris.

    funny how Happy makes money off of Saddam, then blasts David for wanting to make money off of telling the truth.

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/30/2007 @ 11:35am

84. "Having trouble with the hsuB/cHeney admin totally owning this disaster Maasch? Need to sprend it around since hsuB didn't adhere to the resolutions, so you make shit up. "

    Nope. No trouble at all...simply pointing out how the feet of clay are now running the Congress...and have the same tar and feathers on themselves as you are trying to put on the repubs alone...you must be so proud.

    "Worried about all those fingers pointing at you, aye Maasch. Being guilty is a bitch isn't it Maasch. Or can't you still admit to it? "

    "No, I do not feel guilty at all...as I know why we went into Iraq, for me WMDs are only a second tier,and I believe it wasn't a bad idea, but poorly thought out as to what to do next...I am one of those who believes we have been under attack for 15 years and all the past presidents have been asleep at the wheel..so I would naturally disagree with almost all of your posts..

    Posted by john maasch at 05/30/2007 @ 11:40am

85. "It seems the loons are far better at reality than you, and the whole republican party, excluding the loon Buchanon.

    Posted by CRABWALK 05/30/2007 @ 09:02am "

    Then run them at the polls in Nov and run them hard...

    Posted by john maasch at 05/30/2007 @ 11:42am

86. Posted by CRABWALK 05/30/2007 @ 09:09am

    Yup, that's about the same list I come up with when I think loons....I would love to see anyone of them on the Dem ticket this fall, including the biggest loon in the flock...ALGORE.

    Posted by john maasch at 05/30/2007 @ 11:46am

87. Hey Masky what did you say again about Thompson and Gore enterring the pres race:

    If Thompson doesn't announce for the Repubs in less than 4 weeks, he doesn't have a shot in hell (and even that's dicey).

    Posted by MASK 05/26/2007 @ 4:28pm

    So you are off by a few to a couple of weeks-- as Thompson is said to be announcing on July 4th:

    Fred Thompson will run, advisers say

    By: Mike Allen

    May 30, 2007 08:23 AM EST

    Thompson plans to keep the momentum going with an appearance in Richmond on Saturday at the Commonwealth Gala, headed by Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Ed Gillespie.

    In a preview of the campaign to come, Thompson plans to show he is a candidate acceptable to all elements of the conservative coalition. He will make it plain to the attendees and a large press corps that, as one adviser put it, "The Fred has landed."

    Thompson lives in McLean, Va. Tickets for the dinner, to be held at the Greater Richmond Convention Center, start at $125. Sponsors who pay $1,000 to $10,000 will be able to get their photo taken with Thompson at a reception an hour before the dinner.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4243.html

    But as all the polls show, experts have already commented as to lots of funding for Gore, plus the newest finance regulations I cited w/ link, all discredit your statement every which way one can view it. So could it be that you are once again off, but instead of weeks, by lots and lots of months:

    Gore lost the 2008 nomination six-ten months ago, when he failed to announce and start raising money as fast as HRC, Barack or John. It's all eaten up now.

    Posted by MASK 05/26/2007 @ 4:28pm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 12:08pm

88. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/30/2007 @ 11:40am

    Yep, what's worse than a liar is an incompetent one.

    However you're totally wrong as to what conditions were that were voted to in the resolution and which I cited w/link.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 12:12pm

89. er, However you're totally wrong as to what 'the' conditions were that were voted to in the resolution and which I cited w/link 'previously'.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 12:13pm

90. I would love to see anyone of them on the Dem ticket this fall, including the biggest loon in the flock...ALGORE.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/30/2007 @ 11:46am

    Polls already show Al beating a lot of the repubs currently running and he hasn't even announced that he is! A Gore/Obama ticket would already cream anything the new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy could possibly put out there. Name one.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 12:18pm

91. I would love to see anyone of them on the Dem ticket this fall, including the biggest loon in the flock...ALGORE.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/30/2007 @ 11:46am

    Polls already show Al beating a lot of the repubs currently running and he hasn't even announced that he is! A Gore/Obama ticket would already cream anything the new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy could possibly put out there. Name one.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 12:19pm

92. Yea, Thompsons been running for a few weeks now...I think he can win the nomination..and if he picks number 2 well, then he can kill off Hillary even if she finds it necessary to put Obama on the ticket to scrape each and every black vote in the land, as she will need them...and she will get them...unfortunatly, the blacks will get the same as always from the dems....zip

    Posted by john maasch at 05/30/2007 @ 12:24pm

93. "Polls already show Al beating a lot of the repubs currently running and he hasn't even announced that he is! A Gore/Obama ticket would already cream anything the new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy could possibly put out there. Name one."

    Forget the polls ..too early...as far as creaming the "servicers of dic'tator philosophy.."..true enough,who ever that is, but against perhaps a real conservative ...I don't think so..but I could be wrong...I will tell you this...as much a you "cream" over the idea of AlGORE...just as many if not more, well,...the very name ALGORE..curddles their "cream"............

    Posted by john maasch at 05/30/2007 @ 12:29pm

94. "cream" over the idea of AlGORE...just as many if not more, well,...the very name ALGORE..curddles their "cream"............

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/30/2007 @ 12:29pm

    And thus how the new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy-- the hsuB/cHeney admin, so too mangles language to mean the resolution had nothing to do with the UN and is only a license for WAR.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 12:39pm

95. ..I am one of those who believes we have been under attack for 15 years

    but not by Iraq. when attacked always strike out at someone who didn't attack you, nicht wahr Maasch?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/30/2007 @ 12:40pm

96. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/30/2007 @ 12:24pm | ignore this person

    Fred has done nothing for a decade or more. why would he be a legit candidate? who has raised the most money of the repubs? certainly not Fred. you guys are dreaming.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/30/2007 @ 12:42pm

97. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/30/2007 @ 09:32am

    What fact am I not facing when I predict that if Gore doesn't run and Bush/Cheney aren't impeached....

    that you'll never admit you were wrong, and will come up with some phoney spin on why neither thing happened?

    Posted by Mask at 05/30/2007 @ 12:45pm

98. "Fred has done nothing for a decade or more. why would he be a legit candidate?'

    Yup, might help....Obama has done what, exactly? Wer all know what Hillary has been up too? Ewards? Enough said there...

    PHRED may be the only one who can actualy speak for himself with a straight face..

    We will see...

    Posted by john maasch at 05/30/2007 @ 12:47pm

99. And, he is thr only conservative in the race...the Repubs used to run conservatives...and haven't since Reagan..

    Posted by john maasch at 05/30/2007 @ 12:47pm

100. "so too mangles language to mean the resolution had nothing to do with the UN and is only a license for WAR. "

     I am a victim of the public school system.

     Posted by john maasch at 05/30/2007 @ 12:49pm

101. Posted by HAPPY 05/30/2007 @ 10:28am

     A prediction on Iraq? No, like many I still had some hope that it would work out. By November 2004 and a choice of keeping the policies that were failing or trying something (and SOMEBODY) new....I voted for Kerry.

     But then again, I'm not the President, nor the CIA, nor on the National Security Council and privy to a LOT of analysis that showed that sectarian violence would break out AND I wasn't Paul Bremer who STUPIDLY disentegrated the Iraqi Army or Rumsfeld who STUPIDLY decided it was better to guard the oil fields than....the TONS of loose armaments lying around.

     Posted by Mask at 05/30/2007 @ 12:49pm

102. BTW, HSUB....you were right....I was off ....by exactly seven days.

     A figure I'll grant to YOU as well....let's say no Gore announcement or bills of impeachment out by Halloween....I'll give you until November 7th as a cushion!

     Posted by Mask at 05/30/2007 @ 12:51pm

103. What fact am I not facing when I predict that if Gore doesn't run and Bush/Cheney aren't impeached....

     that you'll never admit you were wrong, and will come up with some phoney spin on why neither thing happened?

     Posted by MASK 05/30/2007 @ 12:45pm

     All the facts I presented from the FEC, the polls, experts on the subject-- perferring nothing to substantiate your contentions.

     I always admit 'when' I am wrong. But I am not. Not yet.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 1:02pm

104. BTW, HSUB....you were right....I was off ....by exactly seven days.

     Posted by MASK 05/30/2007 @ 12:51pm

     Er, ok if you want to fudge it a little. You did say 'less than' 4 weeks, a few days ago. But it's close enough for political work.

     BTW, if it's earlier, I'll take the credit as you should as well. However if Gore annouces later or hsuB gets impeached later than Oct/Nov., I will admit to being off.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 1:08pm

105. I am a victim of the public school system.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/30/2007 @ 12:49pm

     And hsuB's excuse is what exactly?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 1:09pm

106. ...Obama has done what, exactly? Wer all know what Hillary has been up too? Ewards?

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/30/2007 @ 12:47pm

     Apparently a lot more ,per the polls/votes, than hsuB/cHeney and the new con repubs... new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 1:13pm

107. So much for Thomspson being a 'real' conservative. Already starting to surround himself with new con tools:

     "Thompson allies have had discussions with Tim Griffin, the Arkansas U.S. attorney and Rove protégé, about taking a top job with the campaign."

     Griffin, of course, was installed as the U.S. attorney for Little Rock last year. Emails from Kyle Sampson have shown that the Justice Department and White House were plotting to use a little noticed provision in the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Bill to keep Griffin in place throughout Bush's term without the need for Senate confirmation. Alberto Gonzales has somewhat unconvincingly disavowed the plan.

     But when that scheme was revealed, Democrats successfully pushed for the law to be changed back to the way it was -- a final version passed the House last week. As a result of that, Griffin will be forced out of office in four months or so. Apparently Griffin isn't waiting around for that. The Arkansas Times blog cites sources saying that Griffin may leave the job shortly.

     http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003315.php

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 1:26pm

108. I am a victim of the public school system.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/30/2007 @ 12:49pm | ignore this person

     this was what 40 years ago? time to move on.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/30/2007 @ 1:45pm

109. Posted by LRJONES4 05/30/2007 @ 10:05am

     I think we already do that - Chilean, Bosnians, Filipinos, South Africans, even Gurkhas. I haven't heard about any Australians - but that might just be because they couldn't document any of their human rights abuses.

     We've been the very opposite of nationalistic here. I mean why does all the torture have to happen in other countries? Why aren't Americans doing their part? I mean, we have the School of the Americas; we know a thing or two about violating human rights. What IS the hold up here?

     With a draft, we'll be able to get friends and family so they can be like Agent Jack Bauer and once they get finished doing unspeakable things to Muslims and other people of color, they can come back and practice all the things they have learned at home.

     I mean, I agree that the Australian opportunity has been overlooked as you so appropriately point out, but I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that God is calling the American people to lead the Crusade, get in their Hummers and SUVs and ride out against the uncivilized hordes that stand in the way of progress. I mean what would Mel Gibson do - I mean the young one? Can we expect any less of ourselves?

     Posted by srjenkins at 05/30/2007 @ 1:54pm

110. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/30/2007 @ 12:49pm

     Me too John. Me too.

     Posted by srjenkins at 05/30/2007 @ 1:55pm

111. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/30/2007 @ 1:08pm

     HSUB, hope I'm proven wrong, then...on your admission of error IF the time comes.

     A Gore run will be interesting, if it happened. How will Gore explain his "carbon credits" lifestyle when it comes under scrutiny? What will Bill Clinton say about his former Veep, to help secure the nomination for his wife?

     But mostly, why will Hillary, Obama, and Edwards supporters ....be so FICKLE and drop those who they felt best deserved the Presidency...to leap to Al Gore's campaign? No loyalty? Fair-weather friends?

     Posted by Mask at 05/30/2007 @ 1:55pm

112. this was what 40 years ago? time to move on.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/30/2007 @ 1:45pm

     JR, what's the "low end" of being able to reference something "relevant" in the past to you? 20 years ago? 15 years ago? 10 years ago? Five?

     I mean, I know you think anything that Thoreau and Teddy Roosevelt aren't important any more, and given the above comment, we know it's ATLEAST 40 years ago....so...anything of relevance that doesn't need to be "moved on" from before 1967?

     Posted by Mask at 05/30/2007 @ 1:58pm

113. What will Bill Clinton say about his former Veep, to help secure the nomination for his wife?

     Posted by MASK 05/30/2007 @ 1:55pm

     Actually I already posted that Bill stated that he'd like Al to enter the race a month or two ago on CNN/LarryKing. Sounded like the level of discourse would help.

     My thought is Bill knows he'd fit in somewhere with any of the dem admins, so would be ultra diplomatic and burn no bridges.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 2:32pm

114. "con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy.

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/30/2007 @ 1:13pm

     You are falling into mantras and madrassa mumblings that make normal conversations with you pointless..

     Posted by john maasch at 05/30/2007 @ 2:57pm

115. I am a victim of the public school system.

     all any school can teach you is how to learn, the rest is up to you. education is a life long process and yes, a lifestyle. let's see, 40 years and 1000 books, that's two books a month.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/30/2007 @ 3:02pm

116. "So much for Thomspson being a 'real' conservative. Already starting to surround himself with new con tools:"

     Bushfools,

     I don't really have a problem with the Bush administration like those here do and I would expect them too...I have a problem with the way Iraq was handled, mismanaged and screwed...and I have an issue with Bush and immigration...as for the rest, I really do not have much of a problem..

     I would expect you to understand this about me, as I understand you have with a problem with eberyuthing Bush...you can't even bring yourself to spell the word Bush...so...we all have our issues.

     Posted by john maasch at 05/30/2007 @ 3:09pm

117. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/30/2007 @ 3:02pm

     True,

     My problem is more with typing on this small Sony laptop than my spelling...when I try to do both fast, I tend to mispell and mis-type...I hope I am forgiven, as my sins are much greater than the lack of skills in these 2 categorys.

     Posted by john maasch at 05/30/2007 @ 3:11pm

118. Off to Las Vegas tonight for a week of conventions...

     Posted by john maasch at 05/30/2007 @ 3:12pm

119. You are falling into mantras and madrassa mumblings

     nice alliteration, but senseless.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/30/2007 @ 3:12pm

120. "con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy.

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/30/2007 @ 1:13pm

     You are falling into mantras and madrassa mumblings that make normal conversations with you pointless..

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/30/2007 @ 2:57pm

     See how insidious the new con way is, like hsuB/cHeney admin linking Iraq to 9/11. Just keep repeating it and it's so. What's wrong with you Maasch-- only new con repubs can repeat stuff over and over again especially when they're lies? My repeat has the benefit however of being true! Perhaps that's what really annoys you...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 3:16pm

121. supporters ....be so FICKLE and drop those who they felt best deserved the Presidency...to leap to Al Gore's campaign? No loyalty? Fair-weather friends?

     Posted by MASK 05/30/2007 @ 1:55pm

     All Al has to do is win the nomination and most dems, indes and even a few repubs-- seeing the alternatives, will join with big Al.

     Hillary is polling up to around 46%, with 5% unsure, without Al in the picture. Put Al in the picture and Hillary, in some polls, drops to 31%, Obama 21 and Edwards 10-- Gore at 13% with 16% unsure. The mere question of Gore in the picture makes a lot of people rethink their options. Some states have Gore polling at 44%.

     One poll w/out Clinton shows Obama at 34%, Gore at 23% and Edwards at 16...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 3:33pm

122. Not bad Al, for someone strong in in the polls while making money and fame promoting liberal thought about our environment, media and government-- while 'not' campaigning for president...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 3:45pm

123. "so too mangles language to mean the resolution had nothing to do with the UN and is only a license for WAR. "

     I am a victim of the public school system.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/30/2007 @ 12:49pm

     You're a grown man who could educate himself if he chose to. Stop blaming others for your own lazy illiteracy.

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/30/2007 @ 3:57pm

124. All Al has to do is win the nomination and most dems, indes and even a few repubs--

     ---HSUB, I wasn't talking about the general election, but the primaries. Why will Clinton, Obama, Edwards people ABANDON them during the primaries to get Al the nomination? No loyalty?

     One poll w/out Clinton shows Obama at 34%, Gore at 23% and Edwards at 16...

     ----Okay. Run with that poll. If the results stay the same, then the winner of the primaries is....Barack Obama, not Gore. BTW...how do you get rid of Hillary?...hehe

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/30/2007 @ 3:33pm

     Posted by Mask at 05/30/2007 @ 4:01pm

125. How will Gore explain his "carbon credits" lifestyle when it comes under scrutiny?

     Posted by MASK 05/30/2007 @ 1:55pm

     Good complicated question. Perhaps it's a political cost/benefit situation. The amount of good versus the little bad of simply breathing or being accomplished, needing security, creating jobs beneficial to mankind being not an additional hindrence. A carfully constructed carbon footprint either way, will the public really see it as hypocrisy or just another reality of life when trying to accomplish good. The only people that don't produce carbon are dead. Thus an asymetrical balance, perhaps, is what 'thinking' people can be looking for in a candidate, i.e. Bill Clinton.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 4:04pm

126. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/30/2007 @ 4:04pm

     Well, good try at a "complicated answer", but the PREMISE of "buying off carbon with carbon credits" isn't Gore's only problem. Many enviros don't buy into it and claim it lets the RICH (like Gore) keeping making their "footprint" while the POOR suffer the reduction in lifestyle that would be necessary to actually cut carbon output (jobs, transport, luxuries).

     It's also the fact that he buys the carbon credits from....a company he helped to found! Generation Investment Management. Which sounds an AWFUL lot like....buying stock in your own company!

     Posted by Mask at 05/30/2007 @ 4:17pm

127. One poll w/out Clinton shows Obama at 34%, Gore at 23% and Edwards at 16...

     ----Okay. Run with that poll. If the results stay the same, then the winner of the primaries is....Barack Obama, not Gore.

     Posted by MASK 05/30/2007 @ 4:01pm

     You miss the point that once Al announces he's in-- the situation changes and thus the results. The mo is there because of a vacuum being created by simply the idea of Al Gore, much like it's being created by Barack Obama. Only Obama is putting a hell of a lot more time and effort into it, as is Hillary. Look at it as a visual; the race goes over this big hill. Gore is sitting at the top of the hill already. Everyone knows he's there. Al's just waiting for the rest to get up there. However everyone is primarily focusing on the ones trying to make it up the hill. The finish on the other side of the hill is what counts and Al has the advantage of not having spent all his energy going up the hill and will be fresh for the sprint down. Timing and patience comes with wisdom and he's acquired it.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 4:21pm

128. Which sounds an AWFUL lot like....buying stock in your own company!

     Posted by MASK 05/30/2007 @ 4:17pm

     But is it? Are there other companies as good that do the same thing? And if it helps the environment-- what's the argument again?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 4:24pm

129. Well, good try at a "complicated answer", but the PREMISE of "buying off carbon with carbon credits" isn't Gore's only problem. Many enviros don't buy into it and claim it lets the RICH (like Gore) keeping making their "footprint" while the POOR suffer the reduction in lifestyle that would be necessary to actually cut carbon output (jobs, transport, luxuries).

     Posted by MASK 05/30/2007 @ 4:17pm

     And that's true, if unlike Al Gore, 'wealthy' carbon creators-- don't attempt to reduce theirs before buying credits, which in turn work to reduce carbon emissions as well.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 4:40pm

130. Off to Las Vegas tonight for a week of conventions...

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/30/2007 @ 3:12pm

     Since a week includes Sunday, you will no doubt be paying a visit to the Vegas church of Rev. LvLiberty1. If you have some kind of epiphany, we will still expect the Maasch of old around here.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 05/30/2007 @ 5:45pm

131. Don't you just love the "victim" mentality of conservatives? I guess "personal responsibility" doesn't include education.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/30/2007 @ 6:06pm

132. "Since a week includes Sunday, you will no doubt be paying a visit to the Vegas church of Rev. LvLiberty1. If you have some kind of epiphany, we will still expect the Maasch of old around here.

     Posted by MYPARADIGM 05/30/2007 @ 5:45pm

     :)....and unrepentant!!...If I am able to see him I will...It won't be Sunday as we have to be a work that day..it would have to bee in the evening if possible.

     Posted by john maasch at 05/30/2007 @ 7:21pm

133. Er, wouldn't it stay in Vagas anyway...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/30/2007 @ 9:40pm

134. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/30/2007 @ 4:40pm

     HSUB....Al and "the rich" who can buy off their lifestyles with carbon "credits" (as is so often noted on a discussion of TAXES) are only the "top 1%".

     It'll be us OTHER 99% who have to actually REDUCE our lifestyles to meet the carbon reduction goals.

     Maybe you just didn't think about it....why does GORE and his rich buddies get to just "buy off" their private jets, 20K square foot homes, etc.....while the rest of us have to start taking the bus, or biking everywhere, buy a push lawn mower, or start keeping our homes at 76 in the summer and 65 in the winter?

     Sound "fair" to you???

     Posted by Mask at 05/31/2007 @ 08:57am

135. It'll be us OTHER 99% who have to actually REDUCE our lifestyles to meet the carbon reduction goals.

     Maybe you just didn't think about it....why does GORE and his rich buddies get to just "buy off" their private jets, 20K square foot homes, etc.....while the rest of us have to start taking the bus, or biking everywhere, buy a push lawn mower, or start keeping our homes at 76 in the summer and 65 in the winter?

     Sound "fair" to you???

     Posted by MASK 05/31/2007 @ 08:57am

     You are joking right?

     You always seem to ignore a ton of substantial related information of concern when trying to make a simplistic point. Are we going to then shut down airlines and bus lines? Does the carbon footprint of the company extend to those that benefit from the company? Isn't there a shared responsibility? Of course there is. Don't be so obtuse. As well it sounds like you're addressing the 'filthy' rich that have no benefit to the rest of society other than spending money on a gigantic carbon footprint life style. Seems like little will change except the decision to move to green power and efficiency-- thus the rich will always be able to buy more green because they have more green. The 'goal' is less pollution. The solution your logic is leading to is elimination the rich and that isn't a pollution concern as such... Sounds like you want to move towards communism to solve the pollution situation rather than utilizing our form of capitalism that Al has taken into consideration.

     Your unrealistic argument needs to come out of the new con isolation of deceptive spin and into the real world. This is the only way to find 'real' solutions.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/31/2007 @ 09:39am

136. er, substantial'ly' related

     elimination 'of' the rich

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/31/2007 @ 09:42am

137. Masky, that argument of yours is basically flawed in that it's saying as it's premice that capitalism isn't fair.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/31/2007 @ 10:11am

138. I'll make it simple, Masky. That argument of yours is basically flawed in that-- it's saying as it's premice that capitalism isn't fair.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/31/2007 @ 10:13am

139. Politically speaking of course.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/31/2007 @ 10:13am

140. Can you imagine Gore clubing the repub over the head with that in a debate-- see repub new cons twist in the wind as their 'rich' base go WAAAHH !?!?!, and switch their vote to big Al.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/31/2007 @ 10:31am

141. Thus the new con repubs run away, evade, throw sticks, shit, ridicule, spiritually disqualify, ... the whole concept of 'global warming', solutions and science itself for that matter-- because they have no 'real' argument. Until, that is, they learn how to monetarily profit from it and not it's alternative.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/31/2007 @ 11:16am

142. Happy, the problem with your attempt to dance your way, and Bush's way, out of culpability here is that this was not one scenario in a hundred. They did not say here's a hundred equally possible scenarios and number 73 happens to be the one where al-Queda funding goes up and an insurgency starts in Iraq and Iran's influence is increased and terrorism worldwide increases three-fold etc. etc. etc. The intelligence community predicted that the MOST LIKELY outcome is all of these things that have indeed occured. The Bush administration simply ignored this and misrepresented the possible outcome to the public. Granted the public should have known better if they were paying attention but you should be mad as hell that you were blatantly lied to.

     Posted by Bardamu at 05/31/2007 @ 11:32am

143. ...you were blatantly lied to.

     Posted by BARDAMU 05/31/2007 @ 11:32am

     BARD,

     David asked that you buy his hardcover or the NEW paperback....pretty clear you have't read it. I did NOT read David's first book "Bush Lied" but did so w/"Hubris". Look up what "hubris" mean!

     If Bush lied us into Iraq (didn't somebody named Libby has sentencing pending for ?lying?), "Hubris" might have been named "Bush Lied, Again!", "Bush Lied, the Deadly Sequal!", "Bush Lied, and Troops Died!", "Bush Lied, I Cried!", "Bush Lied, Let's Impeach!", "Bush Lied, His Way!".....

     David has done likely the most complete research into the leadup to the Iraq War, and guess what, Bush didn't lie!

     Posted by Happy at 05/31/2007 @ 11:49am

144. Bush didn't lie!

     Posted by HAPPY 05/31/2007 @ 11:49am

     Er, hsuB continues to lie. Says he's not saying what he just said and lies about lying. When has he ever stopped lying?

     On the run up to the war I never heard him say-- we're not 100% sure that Iraq has WMD, works with Al Qeada, is about to attach us,... He never said that the authorizing bill was meant for him to work with the UN-- not against it. No, hsuB/cHeney admin said just the opposite and are 1st degree liars.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/31/2007 @ 1:18pm

145. er, attack us

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/31/2007 @ 1:18pm

146. HSUB, if it was ANYBODY BUT Al Gore who...

     said they were "reducing their carbon footprint" by buying off their EXTRAVAGENT lifestyle, with "carbon credits"...from a company that THEY founded and were chairman of...essentially BUYING STOCK in their own company....

     and that ENVIRONMENTALISTS had said this was a phoney plan and a dodge that did little to actually reduce individual CO2 emissions...

     would you believe it? Can you even for a second imagine you would be APPLAUDING a Republican who CLAIMED to be "going green", and was criticized by the environmental movement for his "carbon credit buying"?

     No...of course not. You'd call them a phoney and a hypocrite, because at other times they supported moderate environmentalism or even weighed cost-benefit analysis of some environmental regulation or law...or simply the fact they had a "R" after their name and title.

     But AL...who SAYS all the right things...and MAKES MOVIES about THE PROBLEM....not a peep of dissent on his "green choices" nor ANY cynicism.

     But don't worry...a LOT of people will make that case, IF he decides to run in 2008, even in an Al-friendly Mainstream Media!

     Hmmm?....seems that might be a reason NOT to decide to run at Halloween. If he does, I guess he's willing to risk it....if he doesn't, maybe he's not that sure he CAN defend it?

     Posted by Mask at 05/31/2007 @ 1:37pm

147. Al Gore who...

     said they were "reducing their carbon footprint" by buying off their EXTRAVAGENT lifestyle, with "carbon credits"...from a company that THEY founded and were chairman of...essentially BUYING STOCK in their own company....

     Please post the link to this reference.

     and that ENVIRONMENTALISTS had said this was a phoney plan and a dodge that did little to actually reduce individual CO2 emissions...

     Please post the link to this reference.

     would you believe it? Can you even for a second imagine you would be APPLAUDING a Republican who CLAIMED to be "going green", and was criticized by the environmental movement for his "carbon credit buying"?

     Please post the link to this reference.

     No...of course not. You'd call them a phoney and a hypocrite, because at other times they supported moderate environmentalism or even weighed cost-benefit analysis of some environmental regulation or law...or simply the fact they had a "R" after their name and title.

     Please post the link to this reference.

     But AL...who SAYS all the right things...and MAKES MOVIES about THE PROBLEM....not a peep of dissent on his "green choices" nor ANY cynicism.

     Please post the link to this reference.

     But don't worry...a LOT of people will make that case, IF he decides to run in 2008, even in an Al-friendly Mainstream Media!

     Please post the link to this reference.

     Hmmm?....seems that might be a reason NOT to decide to run at Halloween. If he does, I guess he's willing to risk it....if he doesn't, maybe he's not that sure he CAN defend it?

     Please post the link to this reference.

     Posted by MASK 05/31/2007 @ 1:37pm

     I think you can't refute the frailty of your argument as it's antidemocratic and anti-capitalistic and rather pro-communistic--so you go on a rant, as pulling shit out of your ass and flinging is always seems to be your answer to being dead wrong; you iust sound hysterical again.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/31/2007 @ 1:55pm

148. er, pulling shit out of your ass and flinging always seems to be your answer

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/31/2007 @ 2:00pm

149. Happy, I suppose I cannot at this time prove absolutely that Bush himself did not believe what he was saying about Iraq but it has been proved that nothing, and I mean NOTHING, he said about Iraq in the run up to the war was true. He either lied over and over to us or he was totally out of the loop on what was going on and acted with complete incompetence because the great majority of what he said had been discredited at the time that he said it and it was possible for an ordinary person such as myself to find out this information so Bush certainly ought to have been able to know. My personal feeling is that both are, to a great extent, true. He is both a liar and incompetent. What do you know, we get the worst of both worlds.

     Posted by Bardamu at 05/31/2007 @ 2:01pm

150. Posted by hsuBfools at 05/31/2007 @ 3:00pm

151. No I'm not speachless-- just hit the wrong key. It's inaudible.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/31/2007 @ 3:06pm

152. Eliminating world hunger is one of the United Nations top priorities, and yet, it remains under funded. Surprisingly, this is the case despite the United States' endorsement of the UN's Millennium Development Goals, which call for cutting world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it altogether by 2025.

     Posted by Jessica09 at 05/31/2007 @ 4:20pm

153. Sorry... meant to post this.

     It's not a secret that most historians and other experts in the field predicted hard times, and more specifically sectarian violence, to follow an invasion of Iraq. A review of the debate before the American invasion in 2003 shows that sectarian violence wasn't simply feared by experts as a possibility but was feared as a necessary consequence. Faced with certain violence to follow an invasion and thus the need for the continued expenditure of funds even after the initial victory of toppling Saddam Hussein, it is upsetting that the United States, or really, the pentagon, insisted on going to war.

     Today, the defense budget is $522 billion, largely due to the war in Iraq. To put this number in perspective, one needs only to know that it would take only $19 billion--a fraction of this year's defense budget--to eliminate starvation and malnutrition worldwide. Recognizing the achievability of eliminating global hunger, the United States has publicly committed itself to this goal by signing the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals, which call for cutting world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it altogether by 2025. Hence, by disengaging in the Iraq War, which has cost the United States upwards of $340 billion dollars thus far, the United States can begin to fulfill its international commitments and addresses, among other pressing world problems, the easily combatable one of world hunger.

     Posted by Jessica09 at 05/31/2007 @ 4:22pm

154. it is upsetting that the United States, or really, the pentagon, insisted on going to war.

     Posted by JESSICA09 05/31/2007 @ 4:22pm

     The only thing I'd dispute is that-- one could argue it was in fact the hsuB/cHeney admin that were the ones doing the insisting on going to war; not the pentagon. hsuB is' after all-- the CiC 'resider'.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 05/31/2007 @ 4:28pm

155. The United States now spends more than all the other nations of the earth combined on its military. And that is not counting the costs of the Iraq war. This is far more than can even remotely be justified by necessity. Back in 1960 Eisenhower gave a famous speech warning of the nefarious affects of the growing military/industrial complex and how it can warp economics and politics if not reigned in. I think even he would be shocked at just how far things have gone.

     Posted by Bardamu at 05/31/2007 @ 5:08pm

156. I have not seen any evidence that the Pentagon insisted on going to war. The Pentagon doesn't make decisions about whether or not to go to war. The civilian leadership makes those decisions and that was Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. The Pentagon did however, in a fashion, play a part. That is, the Office of Special Plans (OSP) was set up in the Pentagon by Rummy and douglas Feith (and populated with like-minded ideologues) for the sole purpose of circumnavigating the CIA and cherry-picking intelligence to present to the White House to bolster the case for invasion. Much of this itelligence had already been deemed unreliable and not credible by the intelligence community and much of it came from Chalabi and his organization who had their own ulterior motives for wanting a US invasion. The reason, of course, for setting up this organization within the Pentagon was that it would be under the complete authority of Rumsfeld and largely without oversight. Rummy's little elves worked night and day cobbling together their little fictions about Iraq.

     Posted by Bardamu at 05/31/2007 @ 5:23pm

157. THE REASONS THAT "little georgie bush" DOES NOT LISTEN TO ANYONE IS BECAUSE HE IS ONLY IMPLEMENTING "HIS AND HIS EVIL ASSOCIATES MURDEROUS AND COVETOUS AGENDAS"!!! THEY WILL NOT STOP UNTIL THEY HAVE COMPLETE POWER OVER THE ENTIRE WORLD!!! THAT IS WHEN THEY HAVE THE OIL OF THE IRAQIS AND THE IRANIANS IN THEIR CONTROL. PERIOD!!!

     Posted by roostertlc at 05/31/2007 @ 7:34pm

158. Please support HR 333!!!!!

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/01/2007 @ 9:21pm

159. Please urge your representatives to consider supporting HR 333. Thank you.

     Posted by lewwelge at 06/02/2007 @ 11:07am