An Iraqi "Eliot Ness" Out in the Cold--UPDATED

Three days ago, I called the State Department with a question: what is the Bush administration doing to help Radhi al-Radhi? The answer appears to be this: nothing.

I was referring to the former Iraqi judge who until recently was head of the Commission on Public Integrity, the independent government agency tasked with investigating corruption within the Iraqi government. As I've previously reported, earlier this month Radhi was forced out of his job by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, while Radhi and several of his investigators were attending a training session in Washington sponsored by the U.S. government. A draft of a secret U.S. embassy report--which was first revealed in this column--depicts Radhi as a diligent and serious (though hobbled) pursuer of the rampant corruption infesting the Maliki government. (You can read the full draft report--which concludes that corruption is the "norm" throughout most Iraqi ministries--here.)

Radhi was apparently tossed out of his job because he pushed too hard on corruption within the Maliki administration. He was replaced with a Maliki ally who last month was arrested on corruption charges. Moreover, the Iraqi government cut off Radhi's funding while he was in the United States--except for a small pension of several hundred dollars a month. (As a former government official who held a minister's rank, Radhi says he is due ten times as much in retirement pay.) Given that Radhi has accused past and present government officials of corruption and has recently said that the Maliki administration is so rotten it ought to be abolished, it would be unwise for him to return to Iraq, where his family remains. "I consider him Iraq's version of Eliot Ness," says Chris King, an American who was a senior adviser to Radhi in Iraq. "Time and time again, he put himself and his family at risk to prosecute corruption and promote the rule of law in a nonsectarian, non-ethnic, non-tribal and nonpolitical manner."

Now Radhi has essentially been stranded in the United States. Last week, the 62-year-old former jurist, who was imprisoned and tortured during Saddam Hussein's regime, had to leave the Alexandria, Virginia, hotel where he was staying because he could not pay the bill.

Up until Maliki and his allies removed Radhi, State Department advisers were working with Radhi and his anticorruption commission. It was the U.S. government that brought him and his investigators to Washington for training sessions conducted by the Justice Department and the Defense Department. But now the State Department, according to Radhi associates and U.S. government officials, is not aiding the former judge. "No U.S. government agency has provided him any help to date," says a Radhi associate. On Monday morning, I asked Nicole Thompson, a State Department spokesperson, if this is true. She promised a quick answer. No reply came quickly. When I called again, she told me she had to check with Bureau of Near East Affairs and the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. On Wednesday afternoon, Thompson called with an official response:

State Department officials have met with Judge Radhi and are aware of his situation. As a standard practice, we do not comment on private conversations.

But according to Radhi associates, State Department officials met with him about two weeks ago, and Radhi has not heard anything from the department since then. "Judge Radhi is in immigration limbo," says Christopher Nugent, a lawyer who is working pro bono with Radhi. "He is a man without a state, contemplating his options."

It's no surprise the State Department has displayed little interest in assisting Radhi. For the Bush administration, Radhi is an inconvenient Iraqi. And he is speaking out while in the United States. Radhi is scheduled to testify about corruption in the Iraqi government next week before the House oversight and government reform committee chaired by Representative Henry Waxman. (On Tuesday, Waxman released a letter noting that according to seven current and former officials, State Department Inspector General Howard Krongard has repeatedly interfered with investigations to protect the White House and State Department from political embarrassment.)

When Radhi appears before Waxman's committee, his testimony can be expected to shoot a hole in the Bush administration's rationale for its military action in Iraq. George W. Bush has said the point of the so-called surge is to create "breathing space" in which Maliki's government can achieve national reconciliation and provide basic services to the people of Iraq. Yet Radhi says the Maliki government is so sleaze-ridden and so dominated by criminals that it cannot achieve anything. This raises an obvious question: is the current Iraqi government worth dying and killing for?

During their recent appearances on Capitol Hill, General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker did not address the issue of corruption within the Maliki government. The pair discussed the Maliki administration in hopeful and positive terms. Crocker saluted Maliki's "patriotism." But Radhi's damning conclusions about the Maliki administration challenge Bush's strategy, which is predicated on the notion that the Maliki administration, given a chance, can take meaningful steps to bring peace and security to Iraq.

The Bush White House is apparently not eager to see Radhi testify that the Maliki government is a criminally-run cesspool of fraud and waste. That may explain why the State Department has abandoned Radhi. The State Department also has no plans, according to a spokesperson for the U.S. embassy in Iraq, to release the draft report detailing corruption in the Iraqi government. In fact, according to Waxman, the State Department may try to classify that report retroactively. The copy of the draft I obtained was marked "SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED."

The State Department also has withheld this secret U.S. embassy document from Congress. On September 10, Waxman sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rive requesting copies of "all reports prepared by the Office of Accountability and Transparency [within the State Department], whether classified or unclassified, relating to the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity." This request covered the secret U.S. embassy report on Iraqi corruption, for this report was drafted by officials of the Office of Accountability and Transparency [OAT]. The State Department refused to turn over to Waxman any OAT records, but it allowed staffmembers of Waxman's committee to inspect documents at the State Department. After that review, Waxman reiterated his demand that copies be given to the committee. (The 82-page draft report, though, was posted on the Internet this week.)

Waxman's committee also requested interviews with three Office of Accountability and Transparency officials who worked on Iraqi corruption matters. One, James Mattil, showed up for an interview. The State Department refused to make the other two officials--Vincent Foulk and Christopher Griffith--available to the committee.

Yesterday, Waxman sent another letter to Rice demanding that the OAT documents be handed over today and that Foulk, Griffith, and James Santelle, the rule of law coordinator at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, appear for interviews with the committee. Waxman noted he was prepared to subpoena the State Department if the documents and witnesses were not produced.

Keep Radhi isolated, cover up the draft report and other documents on corruption, sit on witnesses--the State Department is doing what it can to prevent the issue of corruption from undermining the White House's current rationale for the war. Radhi, who would like to return to his job pursuing fraud and waste in Iraq (but who knows that's not likely to happen), says he has no political agenda. He merely wants the truth about the Iraqi government to be known. "His only commitment," says an associate, "is to the rule of law and transparency." But Radhi's truth is trouble for the Bush administration. As he has gone from U.S.-supported investigator to an in-the-cold whistleblower, it looks as if the Bush administration has decided that regarding Radhi the mission is a simple one: cut and run.

UPDATE: As I reported above, Representative Henry Waxman, the chairman of House government oversight and reform committee, on September 19 asked the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to turn over to him a copy of the secret draft Baghdad embassy report on corruption in the Iraqi government and other documents and to produce three State Department officials for interviews with committee investigators.

Rice had not done so. In response, Waxman has issued subpoenas to the State Department for these records and witnesses.

Meanwhile, Waxman's committee is proceeding with the hearing on Iraqi corruption--scheduled for September 27--that will feature Radhi.

Comments (65)

1. Seriously, you just wonder if ANYBODY can come up with some "explanation" for why the Administration is short-sheeting a guy who's actually trying to do something POSITIVE about Iraq!?!?!?

   Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 12:48pm

2. Keep up the good work Corn!

   Posted by CaptainKirk at 09/20/2007 @ 12:51pm

3. well, the administration that represents a gubbament bad philosophy which has conciously placed ideological anti-goovernment sabateurs in as many government positions as possible, which has corruptly and cynically and illegally profited off the only aspect of gubbament they see as worth preserving (the apparati of force which protects/enrichens them, our randian overlords)...these corrupt neofascists are trying to clean up iraq?

   har har har. put the fox in charge of the henhouse! give the keys of the wine cellar to the wino...put neocons in charge of gubbament...anyone's gubbament, and what do you expect?

   ha ha ha!

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/20/2007 @ 12:57pm

4. Posted by MASK 09/20/2007 @ 12:48pm

   Even though he is trying to do something POSITIVE about Iraq, it seems he is just too darn PUBLIC about it. As soon as Radhi learns that there is a script -- and you gotta stick to it -- he'll find his room bill is paid.

   Posted by Hman23 at 09/20/2007 @ 1:03pm

5. Excellent article Mr Corn. You may find yourself in Bush's gunsights soon I'm afraid to say.

   IBBLEBLIBBLE, you are quite correct. In this case, we have a fool in charge of fools.

   It kills me off everytime I see these GOP jackasses with their American flag medals on the lapels of their business suits. I guess if you put that medal on, it is supposed to signify you are on our side, but everytime I see these guys with those pins on their suits I think they are just one of the many drones under the fingers of the rich and powerful chieftons pulling their strings.

   The pin is their alliegence to the lobbyists who in turn represent the ultra-wealthy who provide them with their money, women (or possibly men in the Republicans case) golf vacations, yachts, ski trips, overseas condos, money laundering bank accounts, and of course land acquistion deals etc.

   So, I am not too surprised that W and his boys would try to squelch Radhi al-Radhi before he gets a chance to rat them out.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/20/2007 @ 1:15pm

6. Posted by WOLFGANG1 09/20/2007 @ 1:15pm

   the fascists love them medals, pins, and other allegiance proving regalia, dont they?

   rahdi al rahdi...such a cool name too...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/20/2007 @ 1:25pm

7. Posted by HMAN23 09/20/2007 @ 1:03pm

   Until the topic shifts, I doubt we'll see too many of our neo-con friends commenting directly on this.

   Or until The Weekly Standard comes up with some "dirt" on al-Radhi!

   Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 1:37pm

8. Posted by MASK 09/20/2007 @ 1:37pm

   Or until Rush tells them what to say.

   Posted by Hman23 at 09/20/2007 @ 1:43pm

9. Until the topic shifts, I doubt we'll see too many of our neo-con friends commenting directly on this.

   Or until The Weekly Standard comes up with some "dirt" on al-Radhi!

   Posted by MASK 09/20/2007 @ 1:37pm

   You kidding me? Rush Limbaugh is chomping at the bit (and throwing his fried chicken and mashed potatoes and gravy aside for a change) to come up with some ramped up B.S. about this guy.

   Then there's always the Fox disinformation network, the Wallstreet Comic Magazine to get the ball rolling in the wrong direction.

   Have you ever seen the movie Mr Smith Goes To Washington? Well, the Taylor Machine is about to go into high gear. By the time they get done with this guy, 1/3 to half the country will think that Radhi al-Radhi was Sadam's right hand man and that he actually hid all of the WMD's but won't come clean on it. They might even throw in that he's been behind the asssinations of JFK, MLK and Bobby Kennedy to try to get the dems against this guy.

   Who knows what lurks in their bag of tricks. Let's all sit back and enjoy the show, because we're about to get one.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/20/2007 @ 1:52pm

10. what is the Bush administration doing to help Radhi al-Radhi? The answer appears to be this: nothing.

    -----what did you expect?-----

    pursuer of the rampant corruption infesting the Maliki government.

    -----they've had excellent teachers-----

    "I consider him Iraq's version of Eliot Ness,"

    ---i doubt they'll get al-maliki on tax evasion. more likely a u.s. backed coup------

    Now Radhi has essentially been stranded in the United States. Last week, the 62-year-old former jurist, who was imprisoned and tortured during Saddam Hussein's regime, had to leave the Alexandria, Virginia, hotel where he was staying because he could not pay the bill.

    ----i wonder when his deportation hearing is scheduled for----

    But now the State Department, according to Radhi associates and U.S. government officials, is not aiding the former judge. "No U.S. government agency has provided him any help to date,"

    ----hmmmmm, what could THEY be afraid of?-----

    As a standard practice, we do not comment on private conversations.

    ----no, we just listen to them----

    his testimony can be expected to shoot a hole in the Bush administration's rationale for its military action in Iraq.

    ----the donuts already gone. that's all that's left, holes.-----

    Crocker saluted Maliki's "patriotism."

    ---wow! y'all know crocker's an authority on that---

    The 82-page draft report, though, was posted on the Internet this week.

    ---better repost it. in arabic. in swedish. in japanese. otherwise it won't be posted for long.---

    Waxman sent another letter to Rice demanding that the OAT documents be handed over today

    ---"ms. rice, when did you receive mr. waxman's letter? "i don't recall........."----

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 2:00pm

11. mr. corn,

    thank you very much.

    you deserve one of them freedom medals.

    you have my permission to go to bremer's house and take his!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 2:01pm

12. HMAN, WOLF....or there's the other possibility...

    they just ignore him. As possibily everybody else would.

    'fraid to say, with "bigger fish to fry" (like the occupation itself or WH scandal), this guy may just get lost in the shuffle, even by Henry Waxman.

    Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 2:12pm

13. Why the Administration is firing for someone who was trying to do good is what this administration is all about..

    To me it is obvious. It is about destroying our Democratic Constitionional government. BUT Nobodies home and there is no OUTRAGE. Despite the facts.

    Posted by Isador at 09/20/2007 @ 2:36pm

14. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2007 @ 2:

    yeah...back in the good ole days women of iraq just had to stay away from the husseins...now they got incipient sharia chauvinism...everywhere.

    arent they lucky!!?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/20/2007 @ 2:42pm

15. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2007 @ 2:32pm

    hey there. that was i who posted that.

    before continuing: SADDAM WAS AN ASSHOLE (just wanted to make that clear)

    but he was one of many despots, most of whom are still in power.

    no doubt he tortured, raped--vile.

    but that's going on all over the world, today. and the u.s. military is in no hurry to help the women born in oil-less countries.

    in the secular baathist time, woman could work, go to school. sure with fear. but they could go.

    now, they don't dare leave their houses for fear of being blown up, shot or raped by EVERYONE, including the americans.

    i haven't opened your link. i google the website and the first thing i saw on the google results was this:

    Conservative News, Views & Books - HUMAN EVENTS

    by Ann Coulter. The only "crisis" in health care in this country is that doctors are paid too little. (Also they've come up with nothing to help that poor ...

    ann coulter. that kinda put me off. maybe later i'll take a look

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 2:49pm

16. Until the topic shifts, I doubt we'll see too many of our neo-con friends commenting directly on this.

    Or until The Weekly Standard comes up with some "dirt" on al-Radhi!

    Posted by MASK 09/20/2007 @ 1:37pm

    I'm sure Bush and co. will back Maliki's allegations that it is al-Radhi who is, in fact, the corrupt one to their last breath in office. That will be the official republican couter-spin when the dems use al-Radhi to their anti-war advantage.

    Or they may just accuse him of being a rapist as MBB suggests!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 09/20/2007 @ 3:17pm

17. MBB....went to the website.

    Mind telling those who didn't what the "tagline" or "motto" of Human Events is?

    Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 3:18pm

18. MATTMAN, you'll notice that MARYBRET followed my prediction exactly.....Darin failed to address the actual topic at hand, but went off on a "Uday and Qusay tangent".

    See? It's not so bad that Iraqi women face a Shiia government that will impose Sharia law, possibly burkhas...or that dozens of Iraqis DIE EVERY WEEK, or that BILLIONS have been lost or stolen...we need to concentrate on how "every single woman in Iraq lived under the threat of Uday assaulting them every day"...as a leading CONSERVATIVE magazine tells us they did.

    Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 3:23pm

19. It's going to come down to whose word the public will accept...al-Rahdi and the Dems, or Maliki and the repubs. I'm sure both sides will be able to conjure "evidence".

    Posted by MATTMAN at 09/20/2007 @ 3:30pm

20. I'm having a hard time keeping track.

    Does anybody know of a list of all the subpoenas that the Bush administration has ignored?

    If there isn't one, it would be great for somebody to set one up. Because I don't think most people realize how widespread the obstruction of justice is...

    Posted by ericgu at 09/20/2007 @ 3:42pm

21. FROSTY ZOOM:

    Damn, you beat me to it. I was in on that "old trope".

    He doesn't get it.

    Fear of rape that was, for the majority of women in secular Iraq, fear of a crime that was rather rare, compared to the unending onslaught of American occupation, the turning back of the calendar to a pre-secularized notion of Islamic womanhood, and the complete destruction of most of the infrastructure of the Iraqi state (all, of course, except that of the oil industry).

    So, you still don't believe that the plight of women (and everyone else) in Iraq is worse now than under Saddam?

    You need to stop smoking whatever you're smoking, MARYBRETBRAD. Delusions are not a very desirable side-effect to0 recreational drugs.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 4:00pm

22. Does anybody know of a list of all the subpoenas that the Bush administration has ignored?

    If there isn't one, it would be great for somebody to set one up. Because I don't think most people realize how widespread the obstruction of justice is...

    Posted by ERICGU 09/20/2007 @ 3:42pm

    I think the list would be shorter if it was a list of subpoenas the Bush administration hasn't ignored.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/20/2007 @ 4:04pm

23. I didn't even read the article when I posted. I was continuing a discussion from last week and I saw Iraq in the headline.----Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2007 @ 3:29pm

    Well....that DOES explain it, doesn't it?

    Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 4:08pm

24. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2007 @ 3:27pm

    Given that....you'd say Bush and the neo-cons are as stupid as those who want a Federally-run universal health care system?

    Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 4:12pm

25. CORN: This raises an obvious question: is the current Iraqi government worth dying and killing for?

    "Obvious"? NO! IF one was to ask every soldier deploying to Iraq, "Is your mission to KILL or DIE FOR, the government of Iraq?"...how many % of the soldiers would shout: "Sir, Yes Sir!"

    Unlike our own ossified government, the `government' of Iraq is actually a living and evolving `thing'....with blocs forming, dissolving, boycotting, withdrawing, sulking, vacationing.....an optimist can reasonably assume that given time, the improvements in Iraq's government will be FAR MORE than what we will see right here in Washington! In fact, I'll bet on it!

    Posted by Happy at 09/20/2007 @ 4:14pm

26. Regarding Radhi al-Radhi, the best thing he can do, to both help Iraq and himself, is NOT to get involved in our domestic politics by `exposing' government corruptions. Iraq's factions are too numerous and relationships too fluid, besides, too many are willing to kill/assassinate to get a temporary advantage....

    Best thing, IMO, is for al-Radhi to lay low, with some financial support from the US, and aim to take a meaningful role if and when Iraq `settles down' to serious governing! If Iraq is still a mess in a couple of years, he can `retire' and be a Consultant or scholar based in the US.

    Posted by Happy at 09/20/2007 @ 4:21pm

27. I got the link from Drudge. Human events is an equivalent to The Nation on the conservative side.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2007 @ 3:28pm

    cool. let's see if i can fit that mould. oops. mold.

    let's put on my best ann coulter (figuratively, please folks don't think anything else!):

    LOOKS LIKE FAGBOY ROMNEY SPENT $1500 ON A BIKINI WAX. BET HE WORE A PINK THONG TO THE LAST REFAGGICAN DEBATE.

    yep, the nation.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 4:21pm

28. I think the relevant point here is that before the invasion the decision was to weigh the potential for improvement against the potential to make things worse. Given that things were pretty fuckin' bad, you had a lot more upside potential than downside, espeically when you combine that with a belief in the power of freedom.

    If I concede that things have gotten worse, I need to make two points: They were on a downward trajectory to begin with. They might have gotten worse quicker, but that does not imply they wouldn't have been this bad when Saddam eventually lost control or died. That doesn't mean that he couldn't have aided Al Queda before he went. Etc.

    Second, given so much upside and a relatively tiny downside, the best intentions fucked this up. Think about that the next time you want to replace the current US system with a collectivst eutopia.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD

    That's why we invaded Iraq, deposed Saddam? I thought it was because of WMD's and harboring terrorists.

    If you knew anything about Saddam you'd understand that he was control freak. He wanted total control of everything; he styled himself after Stalin. There's no way he was going to aid a radical religious group that he could not control.

    Best intentions have nothing to do with the mess your people have created. It was an idiotic decision to invade Iraq. Just a little knowledge of history and a few other facts would allow you to comprehend that.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/20/2007 @ 4:22pm

29. I didn't even read the article when I posted. I was continuing a discussion from last week and I saw Iraq in the headline.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2007 @ 3:29pm

    even FROSTY ZOOM wouldn't do THAT!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 4:23pm

30. Does anybody know of a list of all the subpoenas that the Bush administration has ignored?

    If there isn't one, it would be great for somebody to set one up. Because I don't think most people realize how widespread the obstruction of justice is...

    Posted by ERICGU 09/20/2007 @ 3:42pm

    I think the list would be shorter if it was a list of subpoenas the Bush administration hasn't ignored.

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 09/20/2007 @ 4:04pm

    IMPORTANT NOTICE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE POTUS:

    ANY REQUESTS FOR A LIST OF SUBPOENAS MUST BE FIRST SUBPOENAED THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS*

    *so we can ignore the subpoena of subpoenas

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 4:26pm

31. Regarding Radhi al-Radhi, the best thing he can do, to both help Iraq and himself, is NOT to get involved in our domestic politics by `exposing' government corruptions. Iraq's factions are too numerous and relationships too fluid, besides, too many are willing to kill/assassinate to get a temporary advantage....

    Best thing, IMO, is for al-Radhi to lay low, with some financial support from the US, and aim to take a meaningful role if and when Iraq `settles down' to serious governing! If Iraq is still a mess in a couple of years, he can `retire' and be a Consultant or scholar based in the US.

    Posted by HAPPY 09/20/2007 @ 4:21pm

    sure HAPPY,

    maybe you can get him a job in houston selling SAILBOAT FUEL.

    what the #$%@#%%^%#$!^ are you talking about?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 4:29pm

32. what the #$%@#%%^%#$!^ are you talking about?

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM

    He has no idea.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/20/2007 @ 4:34pm

33. what the #$%@#%%^%#$!^ are you talking about?

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/20/2007 @ 4:29pm

    I want the man (& his family) to live! comprende?

    Posted by Happy at 09/20/2007 @ 4:43pm

34. Posted by HAPPY 09/20/2007 @ 4:43pm

    off to play some bass, dude.

    i'll respond later

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 5:01pm

35. In all likely hood some of the corruption money involves American officials. Their is more incentive to keep the corruption than to end it. The fact is that BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE HOLDING THE AMERICAN TROOPS IN IRAQ HOSTAGE so that Bush can continue his failed policies. Bush threatens reprisal should the Democrats pass legislation he doesn't want AND DECLARES THAT THE REPRISALS, FOR DOING SO, WILL BE DIRECTED AT THE TROOPS. Bush has already vetoed a bill for better body armor and better armored vehicles to protect the troops from the IED'S which account for the greatest amount of troop casualties.

    Posted by predator at 09/20/2007 @ 5:16pm

36. off to play some bass, dude.

    i'll respond later

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/20/2007 @ 5:01pm

    Damn, I was hoping to see more Frosty Coulter Zoom. She could be your alter ego stage gimmick!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 09/20/2007 @ 5:42pm

37. Let's see:

    Even though he is trying to do something POSITIVE about Iraq, it seems he is just too darn PUBLIC about it.

    Posted by HMAN23 09/20/2007 @ 1:03pm

    Then:

    Best thing, IMO, is for al-Radhi to lay low

    Posted by HAPPY 09/20/2007 @ 4:21pm

    Yup. Called it.

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/20/2007 @ 5:59pm

38. MARYBRETBRAD:

    You said:

    No, After we didn't find WMD, the Left revised history and said that was the reason. The legal reason was failure to comply with UN resolutions. The real reason was the hope of spreading democracy.

    My response:

    Talk about historical revisionism. You, sir, must be the most dishonest person I have ever had the misfortune of debating on here. The official "reasons" for invading Iraq included WMD's, links to Al Qaeda, removing a horrible dictator from power. Those were from the "horse's mouth" so to speak. Would you like for me to link those very reasons coming from the mouths of Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Fleischer, et al?

    I see how it is. When you can't win a debate, you blame it on the "liberals" then lie about it to try to make your point. No sir. Not here. Take your lying sad sack out of here and find someone else who is willing to buy your snake oil. We ain't having it here.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 6:59pm

39. mr. corn,

    thank you very much.

    you deserve one of them freedom medals.

    you have my permission to go to bremer's house and take his!

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/20/2007 @ 2:01pm

    Seconded!

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/20/2007 @ 7:25pm

40. Second, given so much upside and a relatively tiny downside, the best intentions fucked this up..

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2007 @ 3:27pm

    relatively tiny. tell that to the wounded and dead from this war.

    It damned sure ain't "relatively tiny" to them, I'll warrant.

    And stick that "best intentions" HOGWASH up your ass, where it belongs.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/20/2007 @ 7:28pm

41. with blocs forming, dissolving, boycotting, withdrawing, sulking, vacationing.....an optimist can reasonably assume that given time, the improvements in Iraq's government will be FAR MORE than what we will see right here in Washington! In fact, I'll bet on it!

    Posted by HAPPY 09/20/2007 @ 4:14pm

    Why don't you "bet your life" and sign up for a tour, Mr Cheerleader.

    Jesus H Christ you people are unfuckingbelieveable.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/20/2007 @ 7:30pm

42. off to play some bass, dude.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/20/2007 @ 5:01pm

    Keep it tight.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/20/2007 @ 7:31pm

43. DR DECIBELS:

    I second that emotion.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 7:41pm

44. Posted by HAPPY 09/20/2007 @ 4:14pm

    Yeah, HAPP, I remember reading in my history books how the first US Congress in Philadelphia lost 1/3 of their component because they were Catholic and the Protestants were dominant. How they couldn't leave the "Green Zone" in Philly. How they had achieved almost NONE of the goals of Federalism. How they had lost or stolen in real 1797 dollars BILLIONS of the revenue coming into the Government....

    and I remember how the historians praised that as showing how it was "actually a living and evolving `thing'."

    Of course I think only Bill Kristol and Joe Lieberman were writing them!

    LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 8:51pm

45. .....reading in my history books how the first US Congress in Philadelphia....

    Posted by MASK 09/20/2007 @ 8:51pm

    Finally catch you messing up on history! IF you are going to compare US relative to Iraq, you need to go back to when the King's government was first established on our shores...all the way to 1776....seems to me more than 4~5 years elapsed! I'm not that great w/Old America history, maybe you can fill me in....perhaps I had forgotten some interim governments between that of Colonial England and the 1st AMERICAN gov't! I'm thinking too, probably a few colonists died fighting the Union Jack!

    Posted by Happy at 09/20/2007 @ 10:55pm

46. anyone wanna place a bet when Radhi will be deported ?

    Posted by generaloberst at 09/20/2007 @ 11:21pm

47. I want the man (& his family) to live! comprende?

    Posted by HAPPY 09/20/2007 @ 4:43pm

    glad to see (sincerely) you are thinking about your fellow man.

    he's got family back home.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2007 @ 12:57am

48. Damn, I was hoping to see more Frosty Coulter Zoom. She could be your alter ego stage gimmick!

    Posted by MATTMAN 09/20/2007 @ 5:42pm

    flusheth these thoughts from thy brain

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2007 @ 12:58am

49. Seconded!

    Posted by DR DECIBELS 09/20/2007 @ 7:25pm

    THOIDED!

    Posted by CURLY* FREEDOM 09/20/2007 @ 7:25pm

    *really JONES, ¿curly?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2007 @ 01:02am

50. Posted by DR DECIBELS 09/20/2007 @ 7:31pm

    tu, si entiendes

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2007 @ 01:03am

51. Or until Rush tells them what to say.

    Posted by HMAN23 09/20/2007 @ 1:43pm

    to whit:

    RUSH: Can you share with us whether or not you understand their devotion, or their seeming allegiance, to the concept of US defeat?

    THE VICE PRESIDENT: I can't. It seems to me so abundantly clear, Rush, that we really need to prevail in this conflict, that there's an awful lot riding on it. It's not just about Iraq. It's about our efforts in the global war on terror, and that entire part of the world, affects what's going on in Iran where we're trying to make sure they don't develop a nuclear weapon. You can imagine the extent to which the Iranians would be heartened in that effort, if they see us withdraw from Iraq next door. We got Musharraf and Pakistan and Karzai in Afghanistan, who put their lives on the line every day, in effect, supporting our efforts to deal with the extremists and the terrorists in part of the world. If they say us bail out in Iraq they clearly would lose confidence in our capacity to carry through and get the job done. So, it's absolutely essential we do it. I don't know what the motive is. They seem to think that we can withdraw from Iraq and walk away from it. They ignore the lessons of the past. Remember what happened in Afghanistan. We'd been involved in Afghanistan in the eighties, supporting the Mujahideen against the Soviets and prevailed. We won. Everybody walked away, and in the nineties, Afghanistan became a safe haven for terrorists, an area for training camps where Al-Qaeda trained 20,000 terrorists in the late nineties, and the base from which they launched attacks on the United States on 9/11. So those are very real problems, and to advocate withdrawal from Iraq at this point, it seems to me, simply would play right into the hands of Al-Qaeda.

    "honey, have you seen the keys to the safe room?"

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2007 @ 01:09am

52. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/21/2007 @ 01:09am Cheney is so full of spin, he's dizzy from the spin cycle and can't remember what he said and when he said it. He's contradicted himself so many times, it makes not only him dizzy, but the rest of the nation evidently.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/21/2007 @ 07:02am

53. Cheney is so full of spin, he's dizzy from the spin cycle....................

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 09/21/2007 @ 07:02am

    yep, and he's put the rest of the world in the dryer, hoping to shake all our loose change out of our pockets.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2007 @ 08:27am

54. "Jesus H Christ you people are unfuckingbelieveable."

    Yet some cannot help but endorse the stupidity by posting to/about/in answer to the most mindless dishonest liars and freaks.

    Can't you see they are here to just say anything about anything as long as they disagree with the libruls and can muster a response?

    I have yet to ever see a single cogent discussion of issues on this blog from any of the non-libruls (call them cons). Name calling is just too pathetic and the personal attacks are too petty.

    We can elevate the level of discourse by not responding to the small minded and ineloquent non-librul knuckleheads.

    Sometimes it is necessary to train the trolls. They crave attention - that is why they are so insulting and insane and mindless (the more crazy the post the more likely a response).

    Does anybody really believe the Saddam WMD's issue was fabricated by the D's because they knew there were none? PUH-lease

    Posted by CaptainKirk at 09/21/2007 @ 09:33am

55. I have yet to ever see a single cogent discussion of issues on this blog from any of the non-libruls (call them cons). Name calling is just too pathetic and the personal attacks are too petty.

    Posted by CAPTAINKIRK 09/21/2007 @ 09:33am

    not true. i've had great discussions here with people of a conservative viewpoint.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2007 @ 09:53am

56. CAPTAINKIRK:

    I as well... I would recommend a topic that just shut down last night, regarding Hillary-care. It went on for about 3 days, and ended up around 10+ pages. The last 4-5 pages were essentially a conversation FREIHEIT and I had, and I think it might be what you're looking for. No name-calling, just debating the issues. It was great fun, and I wish all the posters could stick to that format, rather than succumbing to such adolescent name calling.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/21/2007 @ 10:25am

57. Just my opinion. NBD

    Posted by CaptainKirk at 09/21/2007 @ 12:25pm

58. I recant the broad-brush swipe.

    I should not include all the non-libruls - just the silly ones. I would like to conserve such commentary about name calling cons to apply only to the name callers.

    All apologies to all others.

    capt

    Posted by CaptainKirk at 09/21/2007 @ 12:38pm

59. Posted by CAPTAINKIRK 09/21/2007 @ 12:38pm

    Actually Capt, I think if you came here more often you'd see some of the disagreements are AMONGST the "libruls"....ZERO for instance. (though he's an idiot too...heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 09/21/2007 @ 4:01pm

60. Posted by MASK 09/21/2007 @ 4:01pm

    and you amongst yourself.

    :+]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2007 @ 5:10pm

61. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/21/2007 @ 5:10pm

    Really?...like what?

    Posted by Mask at 09/21/2007 @ 8:12pm

62. Really?...like what?

    Posted by MASK 09/21/2007 @ 8:12pm

    just jesting

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2007 @ 11:13pm

63. THANK GOD FOR HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY WAXMAN. IF THERE'S ANY CONGRESSMAN WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, IT IS THIS PUBLIC ELECTED OFFICIAL. THANK YOU, CONGRESSMAN WAXMAN FOR ALL YOU DO.

    Posted by Furgitaboutit at 09/25/2007 @ 11:43pm

64. THANK GOD FOR HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY WAXMAN. IF THERE'S ANY CONGRESSMAN WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, IT IS THIS PUBLIC ELECTED OFFICIAL. THANK YOU, CONGRESSMAN WAXMAN FOR ALL YOU DO.

    Posted by Furgitaboutit at 09/25/2007 @ 11:44pm

65. THANK GOD FOR HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY WAXMAN. IF THERE'S ANY CONGRESSMAN WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, IT IS THIS PUBLIC ELECTED OFFICIAL. THANK YOU, CONGRESSMAN WAXMAN FOR ALL YOU DO.

    Posted by Furgitaboutit at 09/25/2007 @ 11:45pm